Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — POLISH EMBASSY STAFF (FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to consider applying the same restrictions to the movements of the Ambassador and staff of the Polish Embassy in London as is now applied to the ambassadors and staffs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and her satellite countries who have representatives over here.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): There are no restrictions on travel in Poland for the staff of Her Majesty's Embassy at Warsaw. It is, therefore, not Her Majesty's Government's intention to impose restrictions on the movements of Polish representatives here.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does not my hon. Friend realise that there is precious little to see in Poland and that, by having one country free, and by having their own agents looking round British installations, the Soviet is obtaining all the information it wants? Will he look into the matter again?

Mr. Nutting: I have no doubt that the most stringent precautions are taken by the security services in this country to ensure that the freedom which Polish diplomatists and other representatives have here is not abused in the way suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. We shall certainly keep a very close watch on the matter.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is not the principle of reciprocity the best one to apply here? Is not Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards the matter the correct one?

Mr. Nutting: Her Majesty's Government's attitude is, of course, based on reciprocity.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS (RELEASE)

Mr. M. Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Köstlin and Horstmann, jailed for life and 15 years, respectively, for taking part in the killing of allied prisoners, have been released.

Mr. Nutting: Köstlin's life sentence was reduced to 10 years in 1949 as the result of a review carried out at that time. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) on 12th November, Horstmann's sentence was reduced recently from 15 to 11 years as an act of clemency. Both prisoners were released on expiry of their sentences.

Mr. Lindsay: Is my hon. Friend aware that the reduction in the sentences for these appalling crimes is generally regarded as breaking faith with the dead and is greatly resented by many people in this country.

Mr. Nutting: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary considers each of these cases very carefully on its merits. All war criminals serving sentences can, like any other criminals, earn one-third remission for good conduct, and, in addition, the amount of time spent in pre-trial custody is also reckoned towards the sentences. That is why these sentences have expired and these criminals have been released.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the release of these criminals is in no way to be attributed to any change in the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the killing of prisoners of war?

Mr. Nutting: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA (PRISON CAMP DISTURBANCE)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a report has now been received of the disturbance in the prison camp on Cheju Island in which 56 Chinese prisoners were killed


while seeking to celebrate a national festival; whether this incident has been investigated by the International Red Cross as well as by the United States military authorities; and if he will circulate in HANSARD, or publish otherwise, a factual and balanced account of the incident.

Mr. Nutting: The report from the United Nations Command has not yet been received. I am not aware of any investigation by the International Committee of the Red Cross. I shall certainly communicate to the House any further information as soon as it is received.

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTERN EUROPE (PEACE TREATY VIOLATIONS)

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what would be the cost of producing a White Paper containing the evidence assembled for the United Nations describing the violations of the Human Rights clauses of the Peace Treaties by the Hungarian, Bulgarian and Roumanian Governments, given the normal circulation that could be expected for a White Paper of this kind; and what would be the approximate cost to the taxpayers.

Mr. Nutting: I am informed that the actual cost of printing such a White Paper would be about £160. It is estimated that the cost to the taxpayer might be reduced to a minimum of £110 as a result of receipts from sales.

Major Beamish: In view of the very small cost involved, might I press my hon. Friend to reconsider his decision in this case as there is a constant outpouring of Communist propaganda financed by the Iron Curtain countries at very considerable cost? Surely, for £110, this extremely valuable document should be made available to the public?

Mr. Nutting: That would be the minimum to which we could expect to reduce the cost to the taxpayer as a result of receipts from sales, but I really must be very careful about all questions of public expenditure. We have arranged for copies of these documents to be available to the Press, the B.B.C., and the Central Office of Information, and 50 copies have been placed at the disposal of hon. Members in the Library.

Mr. Ernest Davies: In any case, would it not be better to defer any question of publication until after the matter has been discussed at the present session of the United Nations Assembly?

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA (ARRESTED BRITISH SUBJECT)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has regarding the arrest of Captain Henry Navarra by the Persian authorities; whether any Swiss diplomatic or consular representative, in charge of British interests, has been allowed to visit Captain Navarra in prison and arrange for such legal assistance as he may require.

Mr. Nutting: The Swiss Government have confirmed that Mr. Navarra was arrested on 12th November. The Swiss Legation at Tehran made inquiries immediately, but the Persian authorities refused permission to visit the prisoner on the ground that the preliminary investigation was not yet completed. The Swiss Legation are continuing to give all possible assistance in the matter.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Could my hon. Friend say whether the Persian authorities have any right under international law to refuse access by the Swiss Consul to this British subject?

Mr. Nutting: I require notice of the question as to their rights under international law, but, of course, they maintain that the prisoner cannot be visited until the preliminary investigation has been completed. The Swiss Legation, for their part, will, of course, continue to make the fullest and most constant representations in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Food Prices

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food by how much the cost of rations for a family of four has risen since October, 1951; what action is being taken to reduce the cost of food; and when it is expected that this will be effective.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): Rations for a week at present levels for a family of four, including one


child under five years of age, now cost about 3s. 9d. more than they would have cost in October, 1951. On the basis of ration levels at October, 1951, the increase would be rather less.
As regards the other matters raised in the Question. I would refer the hon. Member to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to a Question by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on 21st October.

Mr. Dodds: But will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not answer that part of the Question that was not answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which asks when it is expected that this will be effective—that is, when the cost of living will be reduced? Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman deny or denounce the figures in the "Financial Times" which show that from 24th October, 1951, until the end of August, 1952, for a family of four the increase was from 16s. 10d. to 22s. 2½d.—an increase of nearly 32 per cent.? Have not this Government a very miserable performance in keeping promises?

Major Lloyd George: The figures I gave are the correct figures for the period about which the hon. Gentleman asks. So far as his other questions are concerned, he will observe that my right hon. Friend said that there were indications of a more stable basis, and if he would care to look at the cost-of-living index he will find that, even with the increase due to the increase in October, food is below what it was in July.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food what food prices have been reduced since 1st August, 1952; and in what foods price reductions can be expected in the next few months.

Mr. Dodds: I hope we may have a more reasonable answer to this Question.

Major Lloyd George: It depends upon what the hon. Gentleman means by "reasonable." I am not sure whether he means reasonable to him or to me.
Between 12th August and 14th October, the latest date for which the Interim Index information is available, there were reductions in the average prices of fruit and vegetables, canned ham and

tea. As regards the second part of the Question, I would again refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's remarks.

Captain Pilkington: Ought not the Government to be congratulated on having in one year checked the steep rise in the cost of living?

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food if he will now conduct a survey into the increased prices of all grocery and household items released from control in order to ascertain accurately the real increase in the cost of living.

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. The Interim Index of Retail Prices already provides an accurate measure of the effect of price changes on the cost of living.

Mrs. Mann: Is the Minister aware that the Interim Index of Retail Prices never gives details? It certainly does not give details of items which have been released from control, and the housewives are complaining that there are about 95 such items of food. The Interim Index does not reflect this position.

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Lady ought to appreciate that the Index which we are using at present was put forward as a result of the very careful examination carried out by an advisory committee which was set up by the last Administration and first came into operation in January of this year. In passing, I would say that the hon. Lady and some of her hon. Friends are only too happy to use the Index if they think it is to their political advantage.

Bacon Pigs

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food the average weekly delivery of bacon pigs taken by his Department in May and September, 1952.

Major Lloyd George: The number of pigs used for bacon production was about 73,000 a week in May and 77,000 a week in September.

Fish (Distribution Costs)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Food when he expects to receive the report from the White Fish Authority concerning the cost of fish distribution.

Major Lloyd George: I understand that it will take the Authority some months to complete its investigations.

Miss Burton: That is bad luck for the housewives. Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the consumers want an inquiry into the actual distribution and not only into the cost? Is he aware that in a small town like Grimsby, for example, telegraphing costs almost as much as in a town like Manchester, and that many of the big firms spend between £250 and £300 a week on telegrams, which adds to the cost of inflation? Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that that should be taken into account?

Major Lloyd George: The cost of telegraphing is an important part in the sale of the fish, and becomes a very big item, as I know from the case of other towns with which I am acquainted. As regards distribution, the White Fish Authority is now looking into cost, which is important in distribution.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman really telling the women of this country that it is necessary to spend £300 a week on telegrams to find out if they want fish?

Major Lloyd George: I think that is one of the things being investigated. I think the hon. Lady will find, when the investigation is published, that it is not quite so simple as she makes it out to be.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the right hon and gallant Gentleman aware that the White Fish Authority was set up to bring, quickly and effectively, order out of chaos in the white fish industry, and that there has been undue delay? What is he doing in the meantime to protect the fishermen and consumers of fish in this country?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that a complete knowledge of the facts is an important prerequisite before action is taken, and it is the facts that the White Fish Authority is engaged on ascertaining at the moment.

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that in Grimsby and Hull the number of port wholesalers is in the region of 1,000; and, as this adds considerably to the cost of fish

in the shops, if the Government will take steps to introduce a minimum price at the ports and a maximum one at the shops between which the wholesalers, inland markets and retailers would need to operate.

Major Lloyd George: The costs of distribution of fish are among the matters under examination by the White Fish Authority. The disadvantages and difficulties of price control on fish are a matter of hard experience, as the late Government no doubt discovered before they removed it.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the large number of wholesalers in most distributive trades influences the cost, and is he further aware that in my city of Coventry skilled workers are declared redundant? Is there any reason why surplus wholesalers should not also be declared redundant?

Major Lloyd George: As the hon. Lady was told earlier on in Question time, this matter is now being investigated. It is quite useless to try to take action until we know the results of the investigation.

Cheese

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Food on what date he received a telegram from the Agriculture Minister of Ontario Province offering 10 million lb. of Canadian cheese for Christmas; and what was the nature of his reply.

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food what answer he has given to the offer made by Canada of 10 million lb. of top quality cheese which could be delivered to this country before Christmas; and if he will make a statement.

Major Lloyd George: The offer was received on 6th November, and on the same day I sent the following reply:
I very much wish I could accept your offer of Ontario cheese, but, as you know, our financial position does not permit this expenditure of dollars. I look forward to the time when we have built up our economic position and can turn to you again for this valuable food.

Mr. Lewis: We are all very sorry indeed that we are not in the financial position to be able to get this cheese. Is the Minister aware of the fact that


when the Labour Government were in office and these facts were put to the people the Opposition at that time kept pooh-poohing any idea that there were currency restrictions that stood in the way? Are we now to take it that after 12 months in office the Minister is just seeing the error of his ways during the last six or seven years?

Major Lloyd George: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman says that his party are sorry at the position we are in, and we shall try to do something about it.

Mrs. Mann: Is the Minister aware that cheese is a very valuable protein food, and in view of the increase in the wholesale prices, could he not spare the dollars for this very valuable food?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot add anything to the last sentence of my telegram to Ontario, that when we are in a position to do so we shall be only too glad to buy it.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: asked the Minister of Food, in view of the figures he gave in reply to a question on 20th October, and in view of the difficulty of increasing the cheese ration from non-dollar sources, if he will consider importing larger quantities of dried and tinned liquid milk products, preferably from Empire countries, so that a higher proportion of home-produced milk can be diverted to cheese making.

Major Lloyd George: Dried and canned milk are mainly manufactured during the season when cheese factories are already working to capacity. Even if it were possible therefore to increase imports this would not release significant quantities of milk for the production of more cheese.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend not agree that any effort to increase our cheese ration from home-produced milk would be worthy of investigation? Could he not undertake to see if some improvement could be found?

Major Lloyd George: I certainly would, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, at the moment they are working to full capacity, and he will realise that we are making a quite considerable amount more cheese than before the war.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food the amount of rationed cheese consumed per ration book for the period 31st October, 1951, to 31st October, 1952; and the corresponding amount for the period 31st October. 1950, to 31st October, 1951.

Major Lloyd George: About 5¼ lb. and 7¾ lb., respectively.

Mr. Willey: In view of this marked difference, does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that all these imports are matters of priority and it is about time the Ministry of Food got a higher priority? Against this background there is no excuse for not taking Canadian cheese.

Mr. Osborne: Would the Minister agree that the cheese we are having this year is being paid for out of our national earnings, whereas last year we had to pay for it out of reserves and the money we used was not earned?

Dr. Stross: Would the Minister not agree that there is a very important nutritional and health point of view in this matter? Will he not use the advice of his own committee and that of the Ministry of Health to bring pressure on the Treasury for a larger allocation of dollars so that we can have a little more cheese?

Major Lloyd George: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that cheese has a very high nutritional value. I constantly look for opportunities to get particularly this type of commodity into the country.

Eggs

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Food if he will now make a statement about the marketing of eggs.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) on 17th November.

Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend have in mind that in this country most of the people have grown up now and that it is a good thing for them to have the choice of whether they want to spend their money on eggs or football pools or cigarettes, and that if he will allow the law of supply and demand to operate he will, within a very short time, get more eggs at lower prices?

Major Lloyd George: All that is borne in mind. I hope to make a statement very shortly.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Food whether he will ensure that eggs are not de-rationed until adequate supplies are available.

Major Lloyd George: I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to await a statement which I hope to be able to make shortly.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that answer mean that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman actually contemplates the possibility of de-controlling the sale of eggs at the present time when adequate supplies are not available? If so, he will earn the approbrium of being the first Minister to put a 10d. egg on the market, which will be a very cruel depredation.

Major Lloyd George: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better still wait to hear what I have to say, but I rather gather that he is in favour of getting rid of controls.

Sir W. Smithers: When will the Minister and hon. Members and the public realise that controls are the cause of shortages, and that if we restrict consumption we restrict production? We cannot effectively ration eggs. They will always be sold on what is called the "black market"—and good luck to them.

Mr. Burden: asked the Minister of Food (1) the present cost per annum of the egg scheme;
(2) how many persons are employed in carrying on the egg scheme.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) on 30th October.

Mr. Burden: Is the Minister really convinced that this scheme is now necessary or serving a useful purpose?

Major Lloyd George: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement.

Mr. Burden: asked the Minister of Food the average estimated delay under the egg scheme from the time the eggs leave the farm until they are bought by the consumer.

Major Lloyd George: Between 12 and 14 days, including the 10 days during which the eggs may be in the hands of the retailer or the wholesaler, or in transit.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say why, whenever I have asked a question recently on the subject of eggs, he has made a statement to the effect that I am in favour of de-controlling the sale of eggs? What authority has he for making that statement?

Major Lloyd George: I was under the impression that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that.

Queensland Food Corporation

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if he will now state the decisions reached by Her Majesty's Government here in consultation with Her Majesty's Government in Queensland, on the future of the Queensland-British Food Corporation; and what will be the total cost of this State farming venture falling on the British taxpayer.

Major Lloyd George: My consultations with the Queensland Government, which involve a number of different aspects of the Corporation's affairs, are still in progress. Our joint decisions will be announced as soon as possible.

Sugar Beet Extraction Plant

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Food the age of the latest complete sugar-beet extraction plant in a British sugar-beet factory.

Major Lloyd George: As different pieces of plant and equipment in each factory have been installed at different dates, it is impossible to state the age of all the plant in any single factory.

Mr. Crouch: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that a great deal of work has been done on prototype machinery? Is he further aware that if we have factories equipped with new machinery, not only will it benefit the home consumers and produce more sugar, but we shall also be able to sell sugar-making machinery in the export market?

Major Lloyd George: I appreciate that. I should like to point out that I think that our industry as a whole compares


very favourably with the United States of America, for example. I understand that even in that country they are scrapping some of their plant in favour of what we have now got here.

Meat Ration (Reduction)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Food if he can now give details of the Argentine meat negotiations; when these talks are likely to be concluded; and what prospect there is of an increase in the amount and price of the basic meat ration resulting from these negotiations.

Major Lloyd George: As the House knows, these negotiations cover a wide range of trade matters as well as meat. They are continuing in a friendly atmosphere. Considerable progress has been made, but before a final settlement can be reached a number of important issues have to be settled.
I should at the same time like to let the House know about our prospective supplies of meat this winter. As is normal at this season, supplies of home-killed meat are falling sharply. This will require some reduction in the ration. I propose to reduce it to 1s. 8d. on 30th November and am glad to say that, thanks to prospects of greatly improved supplies from Australia, I hope to be able to maintain it at this level through the winter irrespective of supplies from Argentina.

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that all the housewives of this country will regret the latter part of his answer? Is he further aware that during the whole of these negotiations the Opposition have not in any way tried to embarrass the Government as the previous Opposition did when we were in power? Does he not think it is about time that the Government should try to get some settlement? Does he not think the houswives are entitled to have a decent ration, and will he not try to expedite these talks?

Tea De-rationing (Savings)

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Minister of Minister of Food what saving in manpower and in money has resulted to his Department from the de-rationing of tea.

Major Lloyd George: About 375 staff by mid-November. The saving in salaries will be at the rate of about £135,000 per annum.

Catering Establishments (Hygiene)

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Food if he will introduce legislation to supplement the Food and Drugs Acts for the purpose of establishing a standard of hygiene in catering establishments.

Major Lloyd George: I hope to do so as soon as Parliamentary business permits.

Dr. Broughton: While appreciating the Minister's interest in this subject, may I ask him if it is possible for him to persuade his colleagues in the Government to let us have this important legislation by an early date?

Major Lloyd George: As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, I shall do it as soon as I possibly can. In the meantime, we are keeping in close touch with the local authorities who are responsible for administering these Acts, and as to catering establishments, I hope that very shortly there will be published a handbook on hygiene which I hope will go to every local authority in the country.

Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that if the Opposition had not wasted several hours last night we might have got the Bill through?

Dr. Stross: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether due regard will be had in any proposed legislation, not only to the question of clean food and clean handling, but also to the safety of food with reference to possible additions of suspected chemicals?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, I think every aspect will be considered. In fact, all the preparatory work has already been done.

Mr. Willey: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the Bill is already drafted and could quite well be taken upstairs?

Sugar Beet Factory, Southern England

Mr. Odey: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the fact that the sugar beet factories in the north of England are unable to cope with beet supplies from the south, he will consider the erection of a new sugar beet factory in the south of England.

Major Lloyd George: No beet grown in the south has ever been refused for


lack of processing capacity, but in any event the need to limit capital investment at present prevents the building of another sugar beet factory.

Mr. Odey: Will the Minister bear in mind that this project, by increasing the production of sugar in this country, would be a prime dollar saver and would also improve the prospect of de-rationing of sugar?

Major Lloyd George: The building of a sugar-beet factory is a very considerable capital venture. At the moment, in view of the capital investment position, we are using what capital is available for improving existing facilities.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that unless the South does get a sugar-beet factory in the early future the sugar-beet area in the South will go completely out of production, with very serious consequences to the sugar supplies of this country?

Major Lloyd George: As I have said, the problem is that we are in a difficulty with regard to capital expenditure. The other difficulty is that it is not the South that is the only part of Britain which needs a sugar-beet factory.

Coronation Celebrations (Ox Roasting)

Mr. Godber: asked the Minister of Food if he will issue licences to responsible local organisations to authorise the roasting of a whole ox as part of their celebrations during Coronation week.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Food whether, in order to assist advanced planning, he will give an early indication whether he will permit the roasting of whole oxen as part of village Coronation celebrations.

Major Lloyd George: This is one of a number of suggestions I am considering, and I shall make a statement in good time.

Mr. Godber: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind, in considering this matter, that there is a very real request from many people in the country to celebrate the Coronation in this traditional way?

Mr. Royle: Will the Minister say how many coupons will have to be sacrificed from a 1s. 8d. ration to enable this sort of thing to take place?

Major Lloyd George: That is one of the questions I am considering.

Mr. Peter Freeman: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the loathing and disgust with which such an obscene exhibition is regarded by every decent citizen, and will he withhold such licences, either during the Coronation or at any other time, from local authorities and any other persons?

Mrs. Mann: Since the 1s. 8d. worth of butcher meat would hardly cover a saucer, could the Minister give an indication of the cost of roasting an ox?

Major Lloyd George: I think I will certainly have to have notice of that question.

World Food Production

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the statement in the recent report of the Food and Agriculture Organisation that world food production only increased by 2 per cent. last year, and the world's need for more food has not yet begun to be met; and what estimate he has made of the effect of this situation on British food imports.

Major Lloyd George: The increase of 2 per cent. relates to total agricultural production, excluding the U.S.S.R. Food production is estimated to have remained at the previous year's level. Food imports into this country must depend in the main on what our overseas earnings enable us to afford.

Mr. Osborne: Since the 2 per cent. increase in the world production of food outside Russia is only about equal to the increase in the world population, can my right hon. and gallant Friend make it abundantly clear to the people of this country that there is a great danger that we shall not get as much food in the future as we have had in the past?

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of these facts to which the Minister's attention has been called by one of his hon. Friends, does this not illustrate the irresponsibility of the promises which were made by some of his hon. Friends at the last Election?

Major Lloyd George: I am not aware of what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind in that matter. No promises of any sort were made. In any case, if it comes to that, meat has been rather more plentiful and better than last year, and many other things are better so far as rationing is concerned. It is nothing whatever to do with that. As the right hon. Gentleman knows much better than I do, a lot of this is due to political disruption in parts of Asia and the East, which has had a tremendous repercussion on crops like rice, and so on.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that those who made these promises for the party opposite were not aware that the population of the world has been increasing faster than food production?

Major Lloyd George: There were other things said at the last Election as well, such as the remarks about fingers on triggers. Many of the commodities referred to here do not come into the category of commodities which we wish to have in this country. Many of the great drops in food production in the world are in respect of commodities confined to the part of the world to which I have just referred.

Animal Feedingstuffs (Stocks)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food the amount of the stocks of feedingstuffs for animals at present held.

Major Lloyd George: It would not be in the national interest to give this information.

Mr. Willey: Whilst appreciating the general policy of the Ministry not to reveal the amount of these stocks, does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that there is an exceptional circumstance in this case; that whereas last year we were importing 39 per cent. more than in 1950, during the last quarter we were importing 42 per cent. less? This is particularly relevant to our livestock problem, and the farmers should really know where they are.

Major Lloyd George: I repeat exactly the words the hon. Gentleman himself used in reply to a similar Question some time ago: "I have nothing to add to

what my right hon. Friend said, except to say that stocks are higher than last year."

Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that it is no good repeating what I said some time ago, when at that time imports were 39 per cent. higher than in the previous year, whereas now they are 42 per cent. less?

Major Lloyd George: I am assuming that the hon. Gentleman had a good reason for the answer he gave, and therefore he must assume that I have, too.

Captain Duncan: Would not my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that in view of the hon. Gentleman's previous position in the Ministry this Question is wholly irresponsible?

Mr. Royle: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that there are sufficient stocks in the country to provide for the substantial increase in the number of livestock that may possibly arise?

Major Lloyd George: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a pool which we have been keeping up for some considerable time. That is the target we have fixed. It is not easy to say what the position would be in certain circumstances, but, as far as the pool is concerned, I am satisfied that we have enough material to keep it going.

Vegetable Prices

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that, in Covent Garden on Saturday, 8th November, best cauliflowers dropped in price from 7d. to 3d. each and sprouts from 4d. to 2d. a lb., but that this fall was not reflected in many London shops which were charging at least 10d. for cauliflowers and 8d. a lb. for sprouts; and if, as retailers declare it is necessary to even out prices to take account of wastage and bad packing, he will hasten Government inquiries into schemes of better distribution.

Major Lloyd George: I think the hon. Member has been misinformed. The price of cauliflower in Covent Garden appears to have been slightly higher on Saturday than on Friday, while the price of sprouts showed no change from one day to the other.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that his figures and mine must have come from different wholesalers in the market? Is he further aware that the greengrocers who are charging more for vegetables on Saturday mornings are now getting double profits because they pay less in the wholesale markets and charge more in the shops? Will the Government take a lead in condemning such practices?

Major Lloyd George: I must repeat that I do not think the hon. Lady's figures are quite correct. I saw the article to which the hon. Lady referred in the "Daily Herald," which was headed "Veg Sharks Make Double Profit," and that was immediately answered by the retail fruit trade on that very day. That letter was not published in the "Daily Herald," but the hon. Lady's letter was published. I have made independent inquiries and they confirm what I said in my answer.

Miss Burton: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to accept the assurance that if my information was wrong I am sorry; but I made inquiries and I was informed that it was correct I will make further inquiries and write to the Minister on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Officers' Pensions

Sir Edward Keeling: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether a reply can now be given to the representations about the pensions of officers and officers' widows which were made on 21st July to the Minister of Defence by deputations from the Officers' Pension Society and the Officers' Association introduced by Members from both sides of the two Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he is now in a position to make a statement on the matters raised with the Minister of Defence on 21st July by the Parliamentary deputation on officers' retired pay and officers' widows' pensions.

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he will now make a statement regarding the pensions of officers who retired prior to September, 1950.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): The Government have given very careful consideration to the representations made to my noble Friend by the all-party deputation which he received on 21st July last. They have reluctantly concluded that the policy consistently followed by successive Governments in refusing to apply retrospectively improvements in the codes of retired pay and pensions of the Forces cannot be varied in the present case. They cannot therefore agree that the new rates of retired pay and pensions introduced with effect from 1st September, 1950, should be applied to personnel of the Forces who retired on retired pay or were discharged to pension before that date.
As regards awards to widows and dependants of officers and other ranks under what is known as the "ordinary" pensions scheme, the Government have under review the provisions of the current scheme, with full regard to the views expressed by the deputation. Considerable detailed investigation is involved. I hope to be able to inform the House of the progress we have made before it adjourns for the Christmas Recess.

Sir E. Keeling: As regards that blank negative about officers' pensions, is my hon. Friend aware that it costs officers who retired before 1st September, 1950, just as much to live as those who retired after that date, that the Prime Minister himself on 31st July expressed sympathy with their case, and that distress is being caused by the refusal to do anything for them. As regards widows' pensions, when he is reconsidering this matter—and it seems to take him a very long time—will he bear in mind that a captain's widow today is getting only £90 a year, which is very little more than she was getting 100 years ago?

Mr. Birch: With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, it is realised that times are hard for pensioners. We all feel sympathy with them; but this is a question of principle which has been reaffirmed by successive Governments. As my hon. Friend knows, there have been some modifications and very slight mitigations as a result of the Pensions Increase Bill. With regard to widows, I am certainly fully aware of the points he has made.

Brigadier Clarke: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that these widows have been very badly treated for a long time, especially under the Socialist Government? I hope that he will do something to help them.

Mr. Birch: I certainly hope to be able to do so.

Mr. Swingler: Why is there any need for a further review of these cases? Are not the facts fully known and were not they put to the Minister when he received a deputation? What is the reason for a further review of these well-known anomalies with regard to pensions? Why cannot the Government now say what they intend to do about them?

Mr. Birch: We are going to say before Christmas, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a complicated matter and that all sorts of other considerations are involved in a matter of this kind.

Mr. Marlowe: Is the Minister aware that this answer will not do at all? This is a very grave matter, which affects the Government, and certainly we on this side of the House will not accept that answer. If he persists in this attitude there will be great trouble from all quarters of the House.

Mr. Wigg: Does the Minister realise that his negative does not even take into account the simple fact that many of these officers are required to live on pensions which are less than they were when they were awarded 34 years ago?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Wigg: I beg to give notice that, in view of the very unsatisfactory reply, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

National Service (Period)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if Her Majesty's Government will now reduce the period of National Service.

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he will take steps to reduce the period of compulsory service, having regard to the fact the two-year period was introduced subject to early review, and so fall into line with other Western European countries.

Mr. Birch: As I explained in the House on 6th November, the present period of National Service is necessary so long as the tasks to be performed by the Services remain broadly unchanged.

Mr. Brockway: When the time comes to reconsider the period of National Service, will the hon. Gentleman consider whether the change in the character of the arms programme might not also be reflected in the personnel of the Armed Forces?

Mr. Birch: That consideration is, of course, always in mind, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that these troops are mostly on cold war commitments where that consideration is not so important.

Mr. Craddock: Will the Minister look very closely into this matter, because the young people who are going to be conscripted ought to be forewarned? I hope something is going to be done to reduce the period of service.

Mr. Birch: I can give no undertaking that steps are contemplated in the immediate future to reduce the period.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity of making it very clear that our present military commitments have in no way diminished from the commitments of the last Government, that there is no excuse for any reduction in military vigilance or preparedness, and that it is thoroughly irresponsible for ex-Ministers to suggest that there is any reason why the period of National Service should be reduced?

Mr. Birch: There has certainly been no reduction in commitments since the two-year period was introduced. In fact, there has been a slight increase in the commitments in the Middle East.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and, I believe I am right in saying, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have both expressed the view that the danger of war is receding? Has not the time come, therefore, to review the period of military service?

Mr. Birch: Certainly they have both expressed the view that our foreign affairs are in a better state than when the party


opposite were in power. The improvement has only come about owing to the increased strength of the Western alliance.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence what proposals will be submitted by Her Majesty's Government to the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for the purpose of establishing a common policy amongst the powers suporting the Organisation in the matter of the length of compulsory military service.

Mr. Birch: In discussions on the Annual Review, Her Majesty's Government will naturally support the view that the period of national service adopted by the various countries should be adequate to enable them to fulfil their obligations to N.A.T.O. In determining the actual period of service in any particular country account must, of course, be taken of that country's financial and economic position and of its commitments outside N.A.T.O.

Mr. Swingler: How long will the Government tolerate a situation where other N.A.T.O. countries are reducing their period of military service and this country maintains the longest period of compulsory service of any of them? Why is it that the Government are tolerating a situation in which this country bears all the time the heaviest burden?

Mr. Birch: Other countries have two years service. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which countries?"] Greece and Turkey, for instance. Our views are perfectly well-known to the countries in N.A.T.O., and we have supported General Ridgway's contention that the period of service in E.D.C. ought to be two years. We are not likely to encourage our allies to greater efforts by reducing our own.

Mr. Swingler: How many N.A.T.O. countries have reduced the period of service in the last 12 months?

Mr. Birch: I cannot say without notice.

Christmas Parcels (Overseas Forces)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he can now make a statement as to special Christmas parcel postal facilities for serving men and women overseas.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he will now make a statement regarding the latest date for posting Christmas parcels to our Forces in Korea.

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence what special arrangements are being made regarding Christmas parcel post for service personnel fighting in Korea and Malaya.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence what arrangements are being made this year for post-free Christmas gift parcels to the troops in Korea, Malaya and the Middle East.

Mr. Birch: As in 1950 and 1951, one Christmas parcel of not more than 3 lb. in weight will be accepted for conveyance by air, free of postage, to each member of our Forces in Korea and Japan, and to men sent to Malaya after 6th November, (which is the last date for posting parcels to that country by surface route). Under this scheme parcels may be handed in at post offices for despatch to Korea and Japan between 24th November and 8th December and for despatch to Malaya between 24th November and 13th December (all dates inclusive).
I will circulate full particulars of the scheme, which will start on 24th November, in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They will also be available at Post Offices.
No special facilities are being arranged for other overseas stations.

Sir I. Fraser: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he say why nothing can be done for the men in Germany and the Middle East?

Mr. Birch: They are in a different position, first, because the last posting date is much later and, second, because the charges are so much less. The charges are very high over the great distances to the Far East, and such charges do not apply in Germany.

Mr. Driberg: Could the hon. Gentleman say what the cost of this extremely valuable scheme is, and how much more it would cost to extend it to the Middle East?

Mr. Birch: The cost of the scheme announced, if used to the full, would be approximately £58,000. I cannot give the other figure without notice.

Brigadier Clarke: Will my hon. Friend put the details of the N.A.A.F.I. parcel scheme in the Library so that people can send parcels by that scheme and thereby save the Exchequer a considerable amount of air freight money?

Mr. Birch: I will certainly look into that.

Following is the Statement:

CHRISTMAS PARCELS TO H.M. FORCES IN KOREA, JAPAN AND MALAYA

As from 24th November, 1952, one parcel up to 3 lbs. in weight addressed to each member of H.M. Forces and of crews of Royal Fleet Auxiliaries in Korea and Japan will be accepted at any post office free of postage and will be conveyed by air mail. This concession also applies in respect of each member of H.M. Forces who left the U.K. for Malaya after the last date of posting of surface mail parcels for that country (6th November).

Parcels must be prominently marked "CHRISTMAS PARCEL FOR KOREA" (or "MALAYA" as the case may be) and have a blue Air Mail label affixed next to each address on the parcel.

The parcels cannot be accepted at post offices before 24th November, and the latest dates for posting are 8th December for Korea and Japan and 13th December for Malaya.

Garrison, Bermuda

Mr. Follick: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, in view of the fact that North Atlantic Treaty Organisation troops are to be substituted for a British garrison in Bermuda after two and a half centuries, if he will inform the House from what country, or countries, these troops are to be drawn; and for what reason the existing garrison in this British Colony is to be replaced by troops other than British.

Mr. Birch: The British garrison, which is being withdrawn because the men are required elsewhere, will not be replaced by N.A.T.O. troops. There are adequate local forces for the defence of the Colony, which is the responsibility in the first instance of the Colony itself. The responsibility of N.A.T.O. for the overall defence of Bermuda, which lies in the area of the Supreme Commander, Atlantic, remains unchanged.

Mr. Follick: Is the Minister aware that I put this Question down to be answered by the Prime Minister? As the Prime Minister is here, and as this is likely to be a very important question, which concerns a very old British Colony, it would

have been very welcome if the answer could have come from him. Is he also aware that large sections of the Press, including the Tory Press, have stated categorically that the defence of Bermuda is going to be the responsibility of N.A.T.O. Since when have British Colonies been taken out of the hands of the British people and handed over to the generosity of N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Birch: No Colony has been taken out of the hands of the British people.

Cadets (Military Service)

Mr. Colegate: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he will consider allowing those boys who join the Sea Cadet Corps, the Army Cadet Force or the Air Training Corps, to count their three years' service from 15 to 18 towards shortening by six months their period of National Service.

Mr. Birch: No, Sir.

Mr. Colegate: Will the Minister make an inquiry to confirm whether it is true that these boys who have done this service are indeed far superior to those who have had no previous experience before being called up for National Service?

Mr. Birch: The whole point of the cadet scheme is to have young men who are keen and efficient in the Services.

Mr. Colegate: In that case would not the Minister consider giving them some slight advantage in their period of National Service in order to encourage them to do their three years' service with a cadet force?

Mr. Birch: I do not think that would be in the national interest. The advantages which these young men get is that they automatically become officer and N.C.O. material. They get an advantage both in the services and in their cadet days, and it seems to me that it would be wrong to encourage people to go into a cadet force on the basis that as a result they would not have to do their full period of National Service. That would break down the universality of the National Service scheme and would be unlikely to attract the best recruits.

Captain Ryder: Would my hon. Friend look at this again? Would it not indeed encourage more young men to join the Services through Regular engagements?

Korea (Casualties, National Service Men)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence how many National Service men have now been killed and wounded in Korea.

Mr. Birch: Up till the 8th November, 177 National Service men serving in the Army had been reported killed or died of wounds and 655 wounded. No casualties have been suffered by National Service men serving in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that last week's casualty list included a Scots soldier who was only called up in October, 1951? Is he aware of the public indignation at these men being sent out there to be murdered?

Hon. Members: Rubbish.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIVERSITY FRANCHISE

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding university votes and constituencies.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): It remains the declared intention of Her Majesty's Government to legislate on this subject but not in the present session.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that the people of this country would like to see him drop this altogether, as they would like to see him drop the denationalisation of steel and transport? Will he get on with something more important in the interests of the people of this country?

The Prime Minister: If I were convinced that the hon. Gentleman had any qualifications to express the opinion of the people of this country, I should certainly give his opinions serious attention.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the Prime Minister remember the Greek proverb, "Much learning does not teach sense"?

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Prime Minister whether that is above his comprehension?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry to see that I hit so deeply home.

Captain Pilkington: Could the Prime Minister make any statement regarding the Labour vote taken this morning?

Oral Answers to Questions — RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE

Mr. Erroll: asked the Prime Minister if he will cause an inquiry to be made to discover whether the sum of £161,433,349 included in the Estimates for all Departments of State for research and development has been wisely and effectively expended.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. No inquiry could possibly cover this very wide field. Departmental Ministers are responsible for the wise and effective expenditure of the sums voted for research and development in their Estimates, as for other expenditure.

Mr. Erroll: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the same careful scrutiny is carried out with regard to research and development projects as undoubtedly takes place with regard to other forms of national expenditure?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. But the matter is a very difficult one and I can easily see that strong Parliamentary views might develop upon it. In the present difficult conditions of the world, I am prepared to follow the precedent set by the late Administration.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Prime Minister aware that money spent in this country in research has brought greater dividends by taking this country ahead of the whole world in many branches of engineering and other achievements and that it would be a great tragedy if we cut down on what must eventually determine the fate of this country?

The Prime Minister: I certainly think that credit is due to all those who have taken part in the very great developments of our research. I should not like to draw the conclusion that this advance and these improvements have been due to the fact that this large branch of expenditure has been, for the time being, withdrawn from accurate Parliamentary scrutiny.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONS

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange to visit the United States of America to confer with Mr. Eisenhower before his inauguration as President; or whether he will invite Mr. Eisenhower to visit this country on his return from Korea.

The Prime Minister: I naturally look forward earnestly to meeting Mr. Eisenhower on the earliest appropriate occasion, but I cannot at present say when that will be.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is very strong pressure in America, arising out of the recent elections, for some dramatic new action to be taken in Korea? Will he bear in mind that it is vitally important that there should be full consultation with this country at the highest level before any new action in Korea is contemplated to be undertaken?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly bear what the hon. Member has said in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — .280 RIFLE

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement as to the future of the 280 rifle following on his discussions with the United States Government in January of this year.

The Prime Minister: There has been no change in the development plan since the statement by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence on 23rd July.

Mr. Wyatt: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the report which appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" on Saturday that this rifle had been abandoned was quite untrue? Can he further say what stage of development has now been reached in production of the 280 rifle?

The Prime Minister: We still think that the 280 rifle is the best, and we have not in any way given up research and development on it. But whether the rifle is the best does not settle the question. The question is the uniformity of weapons

over a large area to the N.A.T.O. organisation, and on that many questions remain unsettled as to achieving complete agreement.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Prime Minister not aware that quite recently discussions on this subject were taking place at Quebec under the auspices of N.A.T.O. and that, presumably, some conclusion will be reached? Will he give an assurance that British military authorities and the British Government will not yield to American pressure in this matter?

The Prime Minister: It is not so much a question of not yielding to American pressure as of finding an effective means of re-arming with a weapon of common ammunition the great numbers of individuals who may potentially be called into being under the authority of N.A.T.O.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the Prime Minister see that no British soldier in an emergency, which I hope will never occur—I am speaking of another war—should be deprived of what even the right hon. Gentleman himself regards as the best weapon?

The Prime Minister: I have tried several times to explain this to the right hon. Gentleman. For a comparatively small part of the line of the front to be armed with one particular type of weapon while all the others have different ammunition and different weapons might not be the best way of solving it. Moreover, if the British tried to re-arm alone with a rifle they chose by themselves separately it would take very many years before any effective re-armament of even our front line would be effected.

Mr. Wyatt: Can the Prime Minister say how long he is prepared to go on with the discussions on this matter before we go ahead with a large-scale programme of making this rifle ourselves? Has he further considered that it would be possible to have a considerable export trade in this rifle if we had to develop it by ourselves?

The Prime Minister: I have always thought that the 280 might be useful for special tasks, such as for paratroops and so forth, and we have certainly not abandoned our belief that it is the best weapon yet achieved. But that is quite a different question from undertaking to equip the


British Army with a weapon entirely different from that of all other nations with which we have bound ourselves by ever strengthening ties.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (ARRESTS)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many people of Kenya have been arrested up to date in connection with the recent disturbances there; how many have been screened; how many have been released; and how many are still in Government custody and where the latter are.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): Between the declaration of a state of emergency in Kenya and 15th November, 8,500 people had been arrested in connection with the disturbances. Of these, 2,871 had been released; and 1,258 had been charged with offences connected with Mau Mau, or under the emergency regulations. The great majority are still in Government custody, in prisons throughout the Colony. In addition, 108 persons have been detained under powers conferred by the emergency regulations. In the same period, 31,450 people had been screened.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Has the right hon. Gentleman given further consideration to a suggestion that I made in the recent debate on the events in Kenya, which, I thought, found general support in all parts of the House, that an all-party delegation of members with experience of the administration of emergency legislation here should proceed to Kenya?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am still considering the matter. I have not yet reached any conclusions.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what he is doing to protect and provide for persons in Kenya who, having been taken into custody and screened, have been released from custody.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am confident that, so far as possible, the Government of Kenya will provide protection for such persons as they do for the community at large.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the position of persons in Kenya who, having been arrested and screened, are not released from custody; what charges are

being made against them; when and where will they be tried; and what provision he is making for their defence by trained lawyers.

Mr. Lyttelton: As I am announcing in answer to another Question this afternoon, an advisory committee with a legal chairman will be set up in Kenya as soon as possible to whom those detained and not brought to trial can make an appeal. I am not yet in a position to give further details.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In setting up that advisory committee, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the advisability of making its composition such as will appeal to all races in Kenya?

Mr. Lyttelton: Naturally, that must form a large part of any consideration which we give to the subject.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is after half past three.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. I did not ask a supplementary to either of my other two Questions. May I not ask a supplementary to this one?

Mr. Speaker: I was aware of that, but I am bound by the rules of order, as is the hon. and learned Member.

MALAYA (SITUATION)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

81. Sir IAN FRASER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the present position in Malaya and the progress of the campaign against the terrorists.

Mr. Lyttelton: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a short statement on Malaya in answer to Question 81, which has not been reached.
The course of the emergency in Malaya has greatly improved. Thus there has been a marked and progressive reduction in terrorist attacks, a trend which has become more pronounced during the last six months. During October, the weekly average of attacks by the terrorists was 30 against 50 in September and 123 in February. Despite this, the Security Forces have continued to take a heavy


toll; and an increasing number of those accounted for are leaders.
One hundred and seventeen terrorists were killed or captured, or surrendered, during the four weeks ending 30th October, at a cost of only 29 Security Forces casualties, that is:—10 killed and 19 wounded, whereas in February, when 124 terrorists were accounted for. 66 members of the Security Forces were killed or wounded. At the same time, terrorists have surrendered themselves in increasing numbers. This has led to an improvement in public morale which has shown itself in the increased amount of useful information given to the Police.
The six main objectives which I laid down after my visit to Malaya are being attained.
These encouraging trends do not mean that the emergency is over; they indicate that we are winning, but not that we can or will relax our effort in any way. Everyone should be spurred to those further efforts which we need to restore the country to peace and order.
Unfortunately the economic picture is not so bright. The fall in the price of rubber has led to painful adjustments in earnings and wages. These adjustments follow negotiations and recommendations made by a Board consisting of an impartial chairman and nominees of the workers and the employers. They have been loyally accepted. We shall continue to try and improve the economic situation by all practicable means.
I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government and the Malayan Government are fully alive to the need for winning the battle of ideas against the Communist threat. While General Templer continues to build up the Security Forces and to bring a still heavier impact to bear upon the terrorists, he is at the same time vigorously carrying out a long-term policy of social and political advance in accordance with the directive given to him when he was appointed. The debt which Malaya and this country owe to General Templer is inestimable. He has by his unbounded energy, foresight and liberal approach to political problems transformed public morale and given everyone in Malaya something to do now and something to look forward to in the future.
Finally, no reference to current events in Malaya would be complete unless I paid a warm and respectful tribute to Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, whose visit has encouraged all races in Malaya and whose presence has brought such wide and spontaneous expressions of loyalty to the Crown.

Sir I. Fraser: While congratulating my right hon. Friend and General Templer, may I ask whether the long-term outlook for tin and rubber, which are so important to us and to all the people of Malaya, is satisfactory and, in particular, whether new explorations for tin and new plantings for rubber are going on? While I appreciate the gallantry of the people in those businesses, can my right hon. Friend say that all possible help is being given to them?

Mr. Lyttelton: Let me deal first with the second part of my hon. Friend's question. The prospecting for tin is not yet on a satisfactory scale. That is entirely due to security reasons. One of the dividends which peace will bring back will be the possibility of prospecting again for tin. In regard to rubber, the replanting scheme is proceeding as quickly as the state of the country permits.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Whilst welcoming, as we all do, the signs of increasing success in winning the emergency, may I ask the Secretary of State whether the Government have any policy to deal with what threatens to become a very serious matter for Malaya; that is, the fall in the price of rubber and its impact on the economy of the country? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider very seriously the suggestion that emerged from the recent arbitration that, having regard to the fact that the trade unions have accepted loyally the arbitration award, which has meant a reduction in wages when the cost of living still goes up, there ought to be a thorough investigation of the rubber industry in Malaya in all its economic and social implications?
Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement imply that General Templer is accepting in full the Gurney plan for political development and for elections as then laid down?

Mr. Lyftelton: To answer the last part of the question first, the policy which General Templer is pursuing is that laid


down in the directive which was issued to him at the time he was appointed. In some respects it differs from, and in other respects is the same as, the previous policy.
With regard to investigations into the future of rubber, that is, of course, constantly under discussion; but this is a world commodity, subject to world influences, and I do not think I can be asked to make any predictions on these matters.

Mr. Griffiths: I presume that the Secretary of State will have before him the report of the recent arbitration which awarded a reduction in wages because of the fall in the price of rubber. The trade unions, to whose loyalty tribute should be paid, have loyally accepted that, but the court of arbitration urged very strongly that a full investigation should be made into the economic and social repercussions of the fall in the price of rubber. Will the right hon. Gentleman give careful consideration to that suggestion?

Mr. Lyttelton: Of course, it is my duty to consider these matters all the time in relation to one of the primary commodities of Malaya.

Mr. R. Robinson: Would my right hon. Friend refresh the memory of the House by stating the six major objectives of policy referred to in his statement?

Mr. Lyttelton: They were: First, responsibility for both civil and military affairs being concentrated in one hand. Second, that the police should be retrained and reorganised. Third, that the Home Guard should be built up—there are now 87,000 Chinese members of the Home Guard. Fourth, that the resettlement areas, now known as new villages, should be better protected, and most of them are. Fifth, that the conditions of the Malayan Civil Service should be improved; and last, that compulsory primary education should be introduced. There is a Bill before the Legislature today on that subject.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the best way to maintain the morale of the people of Malaya is to raise the standard of the workers? Is he also aware that the present wages of the plantation worker are 3s. 6d. a day and that there have been two reductions during

the last two months? May I press the right hon. Gentleman to implement the recommendation accompanying the recent award, and to hold an inquiry into the present conditions in the rubber industry?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have already answered that question in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. I remind the hon. Member, however, that there is no possibility of raising the standard of life of workers in Malaya until we can first deliver them freedom from fear.

Sir W. Smiles: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it has been pointed out to the United States of America that the production of synthetic rubber there has a most serious effect upon the prices of rubber in Malaya; and whether the increase in the prices of rubber would not be a great defence against Communism and result in the improvement of wages on the rubber plantations?

Mr. Lyttelton: My hon. and gallant Friend is, of course, aware of the international group—and I think that this is partly what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has been thinking—that has been examining all these matters.

Mr. Driberg: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's view that the practical results of imposing collective punishment on villages have justified the use of that barbarous and undemocratic method, and if so, does that mean that Her Majesty's Government adhere to the old administrative principle that the end justifies the means?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think that the hon. Gentleman has given me the advantage of answering his own question in his own way. I should say that collective punishment has proved its utility in those cases where the community have given no information where barbarous acts of murder have been committed.

Mr. Renton: Can the Minister say whether the number of British people and members of their families who have lost their lives in recent months has increased or diminished compared with the previous period?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have not the figures before me for those particular months


for which my hon. Friend asks. Generally speaking, the answer is that the casualties have greatly diminished on our side, and those of the terrorists have greatly increased.

Mr. Harold Davies: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Her Majesty's Government have investigated the serious report of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, wherein it was stated that there is now—without giving the figures—almost half as much rice for export in South-East Asia as there was before the war, and what steps the Government have taken to lift the rice supplies to this area; and is he aware that in this area a sack of rice is more powerful than a sack of gunpowder?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member knows that we are very pleased with the advance which we are making. He has put his finger on a matter which, of course, must give Her Majesty's Government's present advisers, as it did the last Government's, very great anxiety concerning the marginal position of the rice supplies in South-East Asia. We are doing all that we can to promote by various schemes, not only in that area but in other parts of the Colonial Empire, the growing of rice in order to try to solve this problem. There is no short-term solution for which I can hold out any hope, but for the long-term solution I am hopeful.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

HOME-GROWN TIMBER

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 5th December, I shall call attention to the problems affecting the growing, conversion and marketing of timber grown in the United Kingdom, and move a Resolution.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Sir E. Boyle: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 5th December, I shall call attention to the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, and move a Resolution.

INDUSTRY (APPLICATION OF SCIENCE)

Mr. Albu: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 5th December, I shall call attention to the need for the application of science to industry, and move a Resolution.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS

PRESS COUNCIL BILL

"to establish a General Council of the Press; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Simmons; supported by Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Gordon Walker, Mr. Harold Lever, Mr. Holt and Mr. Eric Fletcher; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th November; and to be printed. [Bill 10.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) BILL

"to remove certain limitations upon the payment of benefits out of the Industrial Injuries Fund," presented by Mr. Watkins; supported by Mr. Finch, Mr. Ronald Williams, Mr. David Thomas, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. Ewart, Mr. David Jones, Mr. Murray, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Stephen Davies and Mr. George Thomas; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th December, and to be printed. [Bill 11.]

SUNDAY OBSERVANCE BILL

"to repeal the Sunday Observance Acts, 1625 to 1780, and to make provision for the regulation of certain activities on Sunday," presented by Mr. Parker; supported by Mr. Carson, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Edward Evans, Mr. Hollis, Mr. George Jeger, Mr. Arthur Lewis, Mr. Nally, Mr. Reeves and Mr. Teeling; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 30th January, and to be printed. [Bill 12.]

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (AMENDMENT) BILL

"to amend the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, in respect of corporal punishment," presented by Wing Commander Bullus; supported by Mr. Russell, Sir Thomas Moore, Mr. Harmar Nicholls, Mr. Partridge, Mr. Frederic Harris, Mr. Teeling, Mr. Dudley Williams, Mr. Turner, Viscountess Davidson, Mrs. Hill and Mr. Braine; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 13th February, and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

SIMPLIFIED SPELLING BILL

"to make provision for the determination of a suitable system of simplified spelling and for the investigation of the improvements in the reading ability of children likely to result from the introduction of the system; to facilitate the subsequent introduction of the system in certain schools; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Follick; supported by Mr. Pitman, Mr. Rankin, Mr. Wade, Mr. Morley, Sir Douglas Savory, Mr. M. MacMillan, Mr. Martin Lindsay, Mr. Drayson and Mr. Parker; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 27th February, and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

"to amend the law relating to local authorities and to amend section seventy-two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, as regards the provision of omnibus shelters and the rights of local authorities in connection therewith," presented by Mr. Mitchison; supported by Mr. Blenkinsop, Mr. Gibson, Mr. David Jones, Mr. Lindgren, Mr. Champion, Mr. Pargiter, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Reeves and Mr. Mac-Coll; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 13th March and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

FOUNDRY WORKERS (HEALTH AND SAFETY) BILL

"to make provision for the better protection of the health and safety of persons engaged in the ironfounding industry; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Miss Herbison; supported by Mr. Woodburn, Mr. William Bennett, Mr. Jack Jones, Mr. Frederick Lee, Mr. Malcolm MacPherson, Mrs. Jean Mann, Mr. Mort, Mr. Robson-Brown, Mr. William Ross, Dr. Barnett Stross and Mr. Richard Winterbottom; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 12th December, and to be printed. [Bill 16.]

DOGS (PROTECTION OF LIVESTOCK) BILL

"to provide for the punishment of persons whose dogs are found straying, or not under control, on enclosed agricultural land where there is livestock or on certain areas of open country; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid," presented by Mr. Teeling;

supported by Major Tufton Beamish, Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Cooper-Key, Mr. Garner-Evans, Colonel Gomme-Duncan, Mr. Gooch, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Hurd, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Marlowe and Mr. Gerald Williams; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th March, and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

PHARMACY BILL

"to amend the law relating to pharmacy and for purposes consequential on such amendment," presented by Mr. John Hall; supported by Mr. Linstead, Mr. Partridge and Sir Wavell Wakefield; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 27th February, and to be printed. [Bill 18.]

GAME (DUCK AND GEESE) BILL

"to amend certain enactments relating to game for the protection of wild duck and wild geese," presented by Mr. Dudley Williams; supported by Mr. John Morrison, Colonel Clarke, Mr. Higgs and Mr. Deedes; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th November, and to be printed. [Bill 19.]

ABORTION BILL

"to amend the law relating to abortion," presented by Mr. Reeves; supported by Mr. Douglas Houghton, Mr. Thurtle, Mr. Parker, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, Mrs. Freda Corbet and Mr. Boothby; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 27th February, and to be printed. [Bill 20.]

WOMEN'S DISABILITIES BILL

"to remove certain legal disabilities of women," presented by Dr. Summerskill; supported by Mr. Janner and Dr. King; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th February, and to be printed. [Bill 21.]

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING (REAR LIGHTS) BILL

"to amend the law in relation to the rear lighting of road vehicles; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Colonel J. H. Harrison; supported by Mr. Crouch, Mr. R. Jenkins, Mr. Fletcher-Cooke, Mr. Partridge, Brigadier Clarke, Mr. Renton, Mr. Norman Smith and Mr. J. J. Astor; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 30th January, and to be printed. [Bill 22.]

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING (AMENDMENT) BILL

"to amend the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 and 1945; and for purposes incidental thereto," presented by Mr. Powell; supported by Colonel J. H. Harrison, Mr. John Hay, Mr. Fort and Mr. Angus Maude; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 30th January, and to be printed. [Bill 23.]

TOY WEAPONS BILL

"to prohibit the offering for sale or the sale of toy weapons calculated to incite to acts of violence," presented by Mr. Viant; supported by Mr. Chetwynd, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Royle, Mr. Paton, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Percy Wells; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 27th February, and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

NAVY AND MARINES (WILLS) BILL

"to amend the law with respect to the operation of wills made by members of the naval and marine forces; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Fleetwood-Hesketh; supported by Mr. Assheton, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Glenvil Hall, Mr. McCorquodale and Mr. Gerald Williams; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 30th January, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

HER MAJESTY'S CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS BOARD BILL

"to establish an Appointments Board for certain senior posts in Her Majesty's Civil Service; to clarify certain nomenclature applicable to officers of the aforesaid service; and to make further provision for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Major Legge-Bourke; supported by Mr. Russell, Mr. Kenneth Thompson, Mr. Deedes and Mr. Renton; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 12th December, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL

"to extend the powers of the courts to disqualify for keeping animals persons convicted of cruelty to them," presented

by Major Tufton Beamish; supported by Mr. Russell, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. Braine, Mr. Monslow, Mr. Reader Harris, Mr. Dodds-Parker, Mr. Burden, Mr. Llywelyn Williams, Mr. G. R. Howard and Colonel Stoddart-Scott; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 12th December, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

LAW REFORM (PERSONAL INJURIES) (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL

"to amend section two of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act, 1948, in relation to the assessment in Scotland of damages for death," presented by Mr. Brooman-White, supported by Lieut.-Col. Elliot, Mr. John Maclay, Mr. Thomas Fraser, Mr. Grimond, Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison, Mr. Hoy, Colonel Gomme-Duncan and Mr. Oswald; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 28th November, and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (PENALTIES) BILL

"to increase the maximum fine for offences of cruelty to animals under section one of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, from twenty-five pounds to one hundred pounds," presented by Mr. F. Harris; supported by Sir Sidney Marshall, Sir Herbert Williams, Mr. Holt, Mr. Peart, Lieut.-Colonel Lipton, Mr. Doughty, Mr. Teeling, Wing Commander Bullus, Mr. Philip Bell and Miss Ward; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 28th November, and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 224.

Division No. 10.]
AYES
[3.50 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Banks, Col. C.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Barber, Anthony


Alport, C. J. M.
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Barlow, Sir John


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Beach, Maj. Hicks


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Baldwin, A. E.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton




Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Osborne, C.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Hay, John
Partridge, E.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Heald, Sir Lionel
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Heath, Edward
Perkins, W. R. D.


Birch, Nigel
Higgs, J. M. C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Black, G. W.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitman, I. J.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Powell, J. Enoch


Braine, B. R.
Hollis, M. C.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Holt, A. F.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hope, Lord John
Profumo, J. D.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Raikes, H. V.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Horobin, I. M.
Redmayne, M.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bullard, D. G.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Renton, D. L. M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Robertson, Sir David


Butcher, H. W.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hurd, A. R.
Robson Brown, W.


Campbell, Sir David
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Russell, R. S.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Channon, H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Kaberry, D.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Keeling, Sir Edward
Scott, R. Donald


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cole, Norman
Lambert, Hon. G.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Colegate, W. A.
Lambton, Viscount
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Snadden, W. McN.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Leather, E. H. C.
Soames, Capt. C.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crouch, R. F.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Speir, R. M.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Crowdsr, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lindsay, Martin
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Cuthbert, W. N.
Linstead, H. N.
Stevens, G. P.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Storey, S.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)



Deedes, W. F.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Studholme, H. G.


Dona'dson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Summers, G. S.


Donner, P. W.
McCallum, Major D.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Doughty, C. J. A.
McCorquedale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Teeling, W.


Drayson, G. B.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon J. P. L. (Hereford)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
McKibbin, A. J.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Duthie, W. S.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Elliot, R. Hon. W. E.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Erroll, F. J.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Tilney John


Fell, A.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Finlay, Graeme
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horneastle)
Turner, H. F. L.


Fisher, Nigel
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Vane, W. M. F.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Vosper, D. F.


Fort, R.
Maude, Angus
Wade, D. W.


Foster, John
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lensdale)
Mellor, Sir John
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Gammans, L. D.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Watkinson, H. A.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Nicholls, Harmar
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Godber, J. B.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gower, H. R.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Wills, G.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Nugent, G. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Nutting, Anthony
Wood, Hon. R.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Oakshott, H. D.
York, C.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Odey, G. W.



Harden, J. R. E.
O'Neill, P. R. H. (Antrim, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.








NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Grey, C. F.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Albu, A. H.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Anderson, Alexander (Metherwell)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Panned, Charles


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Parker, J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hamilton, W. W.
Paton, J.


Balfour, A.
Hannan, W.
Pearson, A.


Bartley, P.
Hardy, E. A.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Beattie, J.
Hargreaves, A.
Poole, C. C.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Porter, G.


Bence, C. R.
Hayman, F. H.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Bonn, Wedgwood
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Proctor, W. T.


Benson, G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Rankin, John


Beswick, F.
Herbison, Miss M.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hobson, C. R.
Rhodes, H.


Blackburn, F.
Holman, P.
Richards, R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Hubbard, T. F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bowden, H. W.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Ross, William


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Royle, C.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Brockway, A. F.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Short, E. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Burke, W. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Slater, J.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)



Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Sorensen, R. W.


Champion, A. J.
Keenan, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Chapman, W. D.
Kenyan, C.
Steele, T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
King, Dr. H. M.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Clunie, J.
Kinley, J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Coldrick, W.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Collick, P. H.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Swingler, S. T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Sylvester, G. O.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lindgren, G. S.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, Rt. Hon Robert (Morpeth)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
MacColl, J. E.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
McInnes, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McLeavy, F.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thurtle, Ernest


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Timmons, J.


Deer, G.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Viant, S. P.


Dodds, N. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wallace, H. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Watkins, T. E.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Manuel, A. C.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, William (Walsall)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
West, D. G.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mons'ow, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Ewart, R.
Moody, A. S.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fernyhough, E.
Morley, R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Field, W. J.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wigg, George


Fienburgh, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mort, D. L.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Follick, M.
Moyle, A.
Williams, David (Neath)


Foot, M. M.
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Forman, J. C.
Nally, W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Neal, Haro'd (Bolsover)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Gibson, C. W.
Oldfie'd, W. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Glanville, James
Oliver, G. H.
Yates, V. F.


Gooch, E. G.
O'Neill, Michael (Mid Ulster)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Orbach, M.



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Oswald, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Popplewell and




Mr. Kenneth Robinson.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the remission of certain sums due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners but now irrecoverable, namely—

(i) the unpaid balance of the principal of a loan to Kenfig Homes Limited;
(ii) the unpaid balance of the principal of various loans already written off by Act from the assets of the Local Loans Fund, with arrears of interest;
(iii) the arrears of interest on loans to Mr. Jermyn Moorsom and to Mr. James Elliot Turnbull;

(b) to authorise the payment into the Local Loans Fund, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of a sum equivalent to the redemption value of the amount outstanding on loans made out of the Fund before the twenty-second day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, to authorities and persons in Northern Ireland, other than advances made for the purposes of the enactments relating to land purchase in Ireland.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(GRANTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS.)

4.0 p.m.

The Chairman: The Amendment in page 1, line 6, after "Commissioners," to insert:
on terms as to rates of interest and otherwise similar to those at present prescribed.
in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) is out of order. I do not select the second Amendment, in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), in line 8, at the end, to insert:
and regardless of whether section one of the Local Authorities Loans Act, 1945, is hereafter renewed, all local authorities shall have the same rights of access to the Public Works Loan Commissioners as they have enjoyed since nineteen hundred and forty-five.
The third Amendment, in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley, in line 8, at the end, to insert:

Provided that any such loans so issued by the Public Works Loan Commissioners shall be at interest rates not exceeding those prevailing on the twelfth day of November nineteen hundred and fifty-two.
is out of order.

Mr. Douglas Jay: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Might I ask for your guidance on that Ruling? You said that the first Amendment, to which we attach a good deal of importance, is out of order. It is my recollection that a precisely similar Amendment was ruled to be in order last year and was discussed for a considerable time. This Amendment is in exactly similar terms and I wonder whether you would give us your guidance as to how it comes to be out of order.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that it was called last year and discussed, but during the discussion it came to light that the effect was rather different from what had been thought originally by the Chair. The Public Works Loan Commissioners do not pay interest to the National Debt Commissioners.

Mr. Jay: Further to that point of order. The Amendment on the Order Paper contains an error, whether a drafting error or a printer's error I am not sure, but I wonder whether I might move a manuscript Amendment to make the Amendment apply to line 7, instead of line 6. The effect would be that the Amendment would refer not to loans by the National Debt Commissioners, concerning which, I agree, the Amendment would be inappropriate, but to loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. The Amendment has been attached to the wrong "Commissioners." Since interest rates are paid by the local authorities to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, that ought to meet the difficulty and put the Amendment in order.

The Chairman: As far as I can gather, that Amendment is the same in effect as the third Amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Jay: That is not so, because the third Amendment refers simply to interest rates, while the first contains the words:
… on terms as to rates of interest and otherwise. …
The words "and otherwise" surely make the first Amendment a good deal wider than the third.

The Chairman: I gather that it is still out of order because it deals with rates of interest.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Further to that point of order, Sir Charles. I am responsible for putting down the first Amendment, and I should like to make this comment on your Ruling. You said that during our debate last year it came to light that there was some defect in the drafting of the Amendment.

The Chairman: It was not in the drafting. It was in its effect.

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate that, Sir Charles. You said that it came to light that there was some defect in the effect of the Amendment. That is not quite the case. What happened was that the Financial Secretary took the point that there was some ambiguity about the effect of the Amendment. If I were free to adopt the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and to substitute "line 7" for "line 6," I believe the Amendment would be in substantially the same form as it was last year. On that occasion, all that the Financial Secretary said was:
… it is far from clear whether the limitation which it is sought to impose upon the rates of interest chargeable on loans relates to moneys issued by the National Debt Commissioners to the Public Works Loan Commissioners or to loans issued by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to the local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November. 1951; Vol. 494, c. 1540.]

The Chairman: The Financial Secretary then said that it was not very clear, but the position has now been clarified. If I had known as much last year as I know today, I should not have called the Amendment then.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not think it would be far from clear to anybody in the amended form.

The Chairman: That may be so, but I am the person who has to decide.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Fletcher: I take it that we are free, on consideration of the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," to put forward at any rate some of the arguments which we should have wished

to put forward in support of the Amendments which are either not selected or are out of order.

The Chairman: Perhaps I should make it clear that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," we can discuss only what is in the Clause.

Mr. Fletcher: The Clause is in a form which seems very unsatisfactory because it does not deal in any way with either the existing interest rates or charges in interest rates. The Clause says that there may be issued by the National Debt Commissioners for the purpose of local loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners sums not exceeding £500 million. It seems to me that there is no point in the Committee accepting the Clause as it stands unless the Committee is in a position to consider what the Public Works Loan Commissioners will do with the money which is made available to them by the National Debt Commissioners.
It is well known that the Public Works Loan Commissioners are the channel through which the money they receive from the National Debt Commissioners is passed on to the local authorities. It will illustrate the way in which the procedure works if I remind the Committee that no part of the money remains in the hands of the Commissioners for more than, at the most, 24 hours. They draw the money one day, put it into their account at the bank and pay it out next day to the local authorities. The local authorities and the public are concerned with the rates of interest which local authorities have to pay.

The Chairman: That subject is out of order. We cannot deal with the rates of interest on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Jay: On a point of order, Sir Charles. We accepted your Ruling that the Amendment, as it stood, was out of order, but it has been ruled by Mr. Speaker and, I believe, by you this year, that the question of interest rates is in order on the Bill. We discussed it on Second Reading, and if it is in order on Second Reading I take it that it is in order arising out of some part of the Bill. Particularly in the light of where the Amendment stood last year, I submit that the matter arises on Clause 1. It was always our understanding that it was in


order to discuss the matter on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," even if the Amendment which we put down was not strictly in order.

The Chairman: It may be that on Second Reading it was suggested that an Amendment should be put down, but I cannot see that in Clause 1 there is anything about interest that can be discussed on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Fletcher: I wonder whether I could illustrate the way in which I hope I shall be in order in developing my argument. Though the word "interest" does not appear in the Clause and there is no reference to it, it is obvious that loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to local authorities must either be made free of interest or be made at some rate of interest. I think that point would be generally acceptable. I wish to put to the Committee not what the precise rate of interest is to be at any given moment, but the machinery for determining what the rate of interest should be and how it should change.
Parliament ought not to pass Clause 1 without understanding and appreciating whether or not the House of Commons will retain control over the methods by which the money is lent to local authorities. We are sanctioning the use by these Commissioners of £500 million for loan to local authorities, and we shall not be doing our duty as a Committee unless we consider the basis on which that very large sum of money is to be spent. It was argued last year, without any demur from the Chair, that one of the factors relevant to Parliament's sanctioning the use of £500 million or of any other sum was some reference to the conditions on which loans were made to local authorities.
One of the most important conditions obviously affecting any borrower of money is the rate of interest he has to pay. Another condition is the terms on which the money is lent. Another is the security given for the loan. I am anxious to put it to the Financial Secretary that, as matters stand at present, unless a new Clause is added to the Bill later on, Parliament will cease to have any control for the next 12 months about, for example, the rate of interest which is

charged to local authorities by the Commission.

The Chairman: The argument has been fully presented, and I have said a number of times that this matter cannot be discussed in the debate on this Clause.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Might I put a point to you, Sir Charles? We feel that there should be some way out of this difficulty. Interest rates are altered by Treasury Minute. We cannot discuss a Treasury Minute on the Bill. Therefore, the only occasion where we can possibly discuss interest rates—and we should at some time discuss those rates—is on this Bill. Previously, as you are very well aware, either by allowing it although a little outside the rules of order or for some other reason, it was then in order but is not in order now.
I have looked through the Bill, and this seems to be the only Clause on which rates of interest can be discussed. Somewhere in the discussion of the Bill we should be allowed to ventilate what, after all, is a most important side of these loans, namely, the rate of interest at which they are to be advanced to local authorities. I would therefore seek your guidance how we can put ourselves in order on this most important aspect of the Bill.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is quite right, even if his argument is logically sound, in suggesting that there are no other opportunities of discussing the system of Treasury Minute under which, as he rightly says, these rates of interest are regulated. The argument "It is quite out of order, but it would be rather nice to have a discussion on the subject and therefore it ought to be in order" is not a very respectable one Secondly, the Treasury Minute regulating rates of interest is an administrative Act, which is capable of being raised in this House in the normal way.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Jay: In view of what the Financial Secretary has said, may I remind you, Sir Charles, that he said last year that the two subjects, loans and interest rates, were so interlocked and interlinked—those were his exact words—that it was


impossible to discuss one without the other? That was the basis on which we have discussed them previously.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The interlocking was not said of interest rates but upon another matter extraneous to the Bill. Secondly, it is you, Sir Charles, and not I who rule what is in order.

The Chairman: I hope the Committee will not pursue this point any further. I am quite clear in my mind about it. Last year there was much more uncertainty about the intention of the Amendment than there is now, and to discuss rates of interest on the discussion of the Clause is out of order. I do not think there is anything more to be said about it.

Mr. R. T. Paget: We had a debate yesterday on the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, another of these annual Bills. The Chair then ruled that the practice with annual Bills was the rule of the House. The practice, what has happened in a previous year, the precedents, becomes the rule of the House.
We are now dealing with another annual Bill which, last year and this year, is the occasion when we hope to be allowed to discuss interest rates. We had a discussion on a similar Clause in the Committee last year, and I am told that interest rates were then ruled to be in order. I therefore put it to you, Sir Charles, that here we have an annual Bill, and a practice which has been established, and that that practice ought not to be departed from.
Even if it were not so and we were starting de novo, the Clause is an empowering Clause. It empowers the Government to do certain things. When the Government ask for power we have to decide whether to give them that power or not, and we are entitled to ask them how they will use it and what principles they will bear in mind in utilising it. We are entitled to say: "If we allow you to lend this money, will you use that power to lend it interest-free or at a rate of interest; and at what rate of interest?" Surely it would be absolutely contrary to every Ruling from the Chair to say that when a Government propose an empowering Bill it is out of order, when discussing the Clause that gives them the power, to ask them how they are going to utilise it.

The Chairman: I do not think so. Interest rates are dealt with under the Act of 1887, and there is no need to deal with that now.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I wonder whether I might put a new point to you, Sir Charles. I think that to some extent you appreciate our difficulties, and it is extremely unfortunate if there is no place in this Bill at which we can discuss interest rates which, as the Financial Secretary said last year, is clearly a matter closely bound up with the whole principle of the Bill. However, there is on the Order Paper a new Clause in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and others of my hon. Friends, which deals with this point, under which we could discuss the question of interest rates without coming up against the difficulty that they are not specifically mentioned in Clause 1. If, therefore, you could give us some indication that you will call that new Clause, perhaps that might meet the difficulty.

The Chairman: Is that the first new Clause?

Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir, the second new Clause—"Procedure for increasing interest rates."

The Chairman: That refers to the same point. That is out of order, and I was not going to call it.

Mr. Jenkins: As I understand it, why you did not call the Amendment put down by my hon. Friends, and why my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, (Mr. E. Fletcher) was not able to develop his argument, was that there was no mention of interest rates in Clause 1. I do not quite understand how that applies to a new Clause.

The Chairman: It increases the charge.

Mr. Austen Albu: Would you not consider that the situation has been altered to some extent by the passage, not yet complete, of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which is intended to allow local authorities to borrow otherwise than through the Public Works Loan Board, but which may, as many speeches made during the debate the other day made quite clear, involved the Government in using the rates of interest in order to establish a balance between the


borrowing of local authorities from the Public Works Loan Board and their borrowing on the open market? One would have thought that this new feature introduced by the change in policy does make the question of interest rates of the Public Works Loan Board this year of very considerable importance, whereas it might not otherwise have been so if there had been no change of that policy.

The Chairman: I said that interest rates were not in order on Clause 1. That is really the point.

Mr. Albu: I was not referring to Clause 1.

The Chairman: We are dealing with Clause 1 now, and the hon. Gentleman ought to refer to it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Does not this put the Committee in a very awkward situation, and the Government, as a Government, in an extremely strong one? If on a Bill of this kind we are not allowed to move to insert certain words simply because it has been ruled that rates of interest must not come into the Bill, and must not be touched by the Bill, it means that we shall never be able to discuss them, except as and when the Government in their wisdom, or lack of it, issue a fresh Treasury Minute. I do not deny that administratively these matters can, on occasion, be discussed, but this is the time and place to discuss them. The point was very well taken last year by the Financial Secretary when he said:
the two matters are so closely interlinked and interlocked that it would be somewhat artificial to try and discuss the one while completely ignoring the other."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 741.]
That being so, as the discussion was allowed last year, and as it is a most important part of this business, surely there is some way out, either on the new Clause or on this Clause, whereby this Committee can discuss this very important issue.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Subsection (2) of Clause 1 says that sums to be issued are to be issued
in accordance with the provisions of the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887.
We are, therefore, I submit, clearly entitled to look at that Act to see what its provisions are as to interest, which is the

matter we are considering at the present time. When I look at the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887, I find the provisions in Section 7 (2), omitting the irrelevant words, are:
there shall be paid to the National Debt Commissioners … and carried to the Local Loans Fund, all sums paid or applicable in or towards the discharge of the principal or interest of any Local Loan granted either before or after the passing of this Act, or of any other sum due in respect of such loan, except as otherwise in the Second Schedule to this Act specified.
Being a very cautions person I looked to see what was excluded. Of course, we could not raise these matters, because they refer to
Any sums received in respect of—

(a) Suez Canal Shares, or,
(b) Any loan for a railway at the Cape of Good Hope under the Cape of Good Hope (Advance) Act, 1885, or,
(c) Any loan made out of moneys advanced on the security of the Irish Church Fund. …"

They are not applicable to the Local Loans Fund. At the moment it would be out of order to pursue the very interesting subject of the loan for a railway at the Cape of Good Hope under the Cape of Good Hope (Advance) Act, 1885.

The Chairman: I quite agree. It is out of order to discuss the 1887 Act.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I am in the happy position of not being, in any sense of the word, constricted by your Ruling in what I hope to be able to say on Clause 1—

Mr. E. Fletcher: I understood my hon. and gallant Friend was rising to a point of order. I had not quite finished.

The Chairman: I really think that I must call the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he is going to speak on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I have given a Ruling to the best of my ability. I am sorry if it does not please, but that is not my fault.

Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, I was in the middle of a speech on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Chairman: I thought the hon. Gentleman was on a point of order.

Mr. Fletcher: No, Sir Charles. I did not continue when my hon. and gallant


Friend rose because I naturally assumed that he was rising to continue the interesting discussion we were having on the point of order and on your Ruling. It would now appear that he rose to resume the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Chairman: I will call the hon. and gallant Gentleman next. I hope the hon. Member's speech will not have anything to do with interest rates.

Mr. Fletcher: No, Sir Charles. It is quite clear from your Ruling that any reference to interest rates is quite out of order on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I pursue this a little further? Do I understand from your Ruling just now that it would be out of order for us to discuss the provisions of the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887? If so, if we are not allowed to refer to them or to discuss them, it means that we cannot discuss what is actually in the Clause, in addition to not being able to discuss something because you have ruled it is not in the Clause.

The Chairman: To go into the details of the 1887 Act would, I think, be out of order. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) went into matters which I thought could not possibly apply here.

Mr. Hall: Surely this subsection hinges on the words
in accordance with the provisions of the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887.
Therefore, subject to anything you may say, I take it that we are entitled to discuss the provisions of that Act. Otherwise we can discuss neither something which is referred to in the subsection nor, according to your earlier Ruling, something which we wanted to put in but which is not there at the moment.

The Chairman: I think the provisions of that Act which are applicable to this Clause can be discussed, but not rates of interest.

Mr. Fletcher: Perhaps I could now forget altogether about rates of interest and make a few observations about the general effect of Clause 1 in so far as it affects, in general, facilities for borrowing by the local authorities. That was one of

the questions which concerned us most on Second Reading.
4.30 p.m.
On the Second Reading debate we were in the difficult position that we did not know at that time whether the House would give a Second Reading to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which normally is taken before the Public Works Loans Bill, but which this year—for some reason we have not yet been able to discover—came subsequently to that Bill. It was due to the general muddle which characterises so many actions of Her Majesty's Government. We are now in a different position, although I do not think it is by any means free from the muddle we expect from the arrangements of the Government.
We are in the position that the House has given a Second Reading to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That was given last night and the Amendment which was down on the Order Paper was not called. The present form of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill omits Section 1 of the Act of 1945, which made it obligatory on local authorities to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board. We still do not know whether the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill will emerge from this House in that form, or whether in the course of debate in Committee that Section will be reinserted.

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member is getting away from the Clause.

Mr. Fletcher: I want to get this clear, Sir Charles. We must assume for the moment that Section 1 is not to be reviewed and, therefore, in future local authorities will not merely be able to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board but also from other sources. You will, I think, recollect that in the Second Reading debate the Financial Secretary was asked a number of questions as to what assurances had been given by the Treasury to local authorities in the changed situation. I called upon the Financial Secretary to produce the circular which he said had been sent to the local authority associations. The Financial Secretary was good enough to circulate that communication in the OFFICIAL REPORT on Friday last. That circular, which we did not have before us on the Second Reading of the Bill, is now in the possession of hon. Members.


It has a very considerable bearing on Clause 1.
What local authorities want to know now is whether in the new situation whereby they are not restricted in their borrowings to the Public Works Loan Board they will nevertheless have the same freedom and the same rights to borrow money from the Public Works Loan Board if they so wish as they have enjoyed during the last six years when they have had no other source whatever from which to borrow money for capital purposes. That is the crucial matter which arises on the Bill this year.
The memorandum to the local authority associations is far from being the satisfactory assurance which local authorities are entitled to expect. I hope that we shall hear in the course of debate on Clause 1 that there is a much more definite and positive assurance than is contained in the circular. For the benefit of hon. Members who have not read last Friday's OFFICIAL REPORT, I will quote the relevant passage. It says:
It is therefore intended that the authorities should continue to be given full access to the sources of finance for meeting approved commitments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 104.]
We want to know what is meant by "full access." Hitherto the amount voted by this House—£500 million this year, which is the same figure as it was last year—was automatically available to local authorities for the simple reason that they had no other source from which to borrow. Now they are free to go to the market if they can or to borrow from private mortgagees if they can find them, but in addition they are told that they have full access to the Public Works Loan Board. We want to know whether that means that, if they. choose to get their money from the Public Works Loan Board, at whatever rate of interest is prevailing at the time, they will be able to get it as of right in the same way as they have obtained it during the last five years.
Or is it the intention of the Government, as has been widely supposed by those who have commented on this Bill in the financial Press, that this new procedure, giving local authorities what the Financial Secretary called freedom from the restrictions of the 1945 Act, will also be used to make it more difficult, not for all, but for some, local authorities to borrow when they want to do so? That

is the fear that has been very widely expressed in a great many quarters. One of the newspapers said that this new method was intended to discipline local authorities, to make them curtail their capital commitments and have regard to their other liabilities, and so forth.
I think the Committee are entitled to view with very great suspicion the use of the phrase that local authorities
should continue to be given full access to the sources of finance for meeting approved commitments.
I hope we shall hear from the Financial Secretary that that means nothing less than that if they make application to the Public Works Loan Board to borrow some part of this £500 million that has been authorised, they will be able to get it, provided, of course, that they have loan sanction and that their scheme of capital expenditure has been approved by the appropriate Government Department concerned; and that they will be able to get it regardless of extraneous considerations, such as, for example, what other debt commitments they may have, whatever is their rateable value, whatever is the rate prevailing in the district concerned.
You will appreciate, Sir Charles—and I hope I am in order—that it is necessary for us to draw attention to a change that has come over borrowing by local authorities in recent years. That is what we are concerned with here. It is all very well to go on year by year making provision for vast sums like the £1,000 million as we do this year without reminding ourselves of the rather significant fact that, whereas in the past local authority borrowings were largely secured on their rates, because that was the chief security they could give, the matter has become rather different nowadays as most local authorities, as part of the housing programme, have built a great many houses—

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member has gone far beyond Clause 1.

Mr. Fletcher: The last thing I want to do is to expand the ambit of this debate, but I think I have made clear the central point I want to put to the Financial Secretary and on which I hope we shall have a clear and categorical assurance before we part with Clause 1.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Sir Charles, in view of the closing words of the hon. Member? As I understand, he asked me to make a statement on the future access of local authorities to the Public Works Loan Board. I do not know whether I shall be in order in so doing. I understood from some observation which fell from you a moment ago that I should not be in order, as we had a wide and full discussion of this issue on Second Reading. I do not want to press this point, but I would be grateful for your guidance for my future information. I do not wish to deny information to the Committee, but, at the same time, I do not wish to get out of order.

The Chairman: The Financial Secretary would, in my opinion, be out of order. I have made the position as clear as I possibly can, that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we can only discuss what is in the Clause, and that to range wider is, in my view, out of order.

Mr. Jay: I hope that we may reach agreement on this point, but I do submit that there must be something which we can discuss on this Clause.
What the Clause does is to allocate the sum of £500 million which may be issued by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. I most earnestly suggest to you, Sir Charles, that it must be possible for us, even under a somewhat strict rule, on a Clause of this kind, to discuss the way in which such a sum should be issued; otherwise, there is almost nothing which we can discuss on this Clause, which, in fact, authorises the issue of £500 million of public money. I therefore respectfully suggest that it cannot be out of order, at least to touch on the important provision which has, in many places, given rise to anxiety about the facilities for the issue of this money.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. On the Second Reading, the question of the access of local authorities to this Fund was discussed, and, therefore, to suggest that it was out of order would be a reflection on the Chair.

The Chairman: Second Reading and Committee stage are rather different, and we are now in Committee. The practice of the House is quite well-established. It

is that we can only discuss what is in the Clause on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I think we have had a long time on this point, and I have made it as clear as I possibly can. I hope that the Committee will now abide by my Ruling.

Mr. Paget: With great respect, Sir Charles, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was merely reminding you that it was in order to discuss the question of access on Second Reading. It can only be in order on Second Reading if it is relevant to the Bill, and it can only be relevant to the Bill if it is relevant to some Clause or Clauses in it. If it be not relevant to Clause 1 of the Bill, then, for the guidance of the Committee, could you tell us to which Clause it is relevant, because, if it was relevant to the Bill on Second Reading, it must be relevant to some particular Clause of the Bill?

The Chairman: It need not be relevant to anything in the Bill at all on Second Reading.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I make this point? The Financial Secretary appealed to you, Sir Charles, as I understood him, on the ground that anything he might say at that Box might be ruled by you to be out of order. We had a discussion last night, not as long as it should have been, on several points involved in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and, as far as my recollection goes—it was in the early hours of the morning, in fact—we did not have one single word from the Front Bench opposite.
This afternoon, on this Bill, in which we are dealing with something like £1,050 million, the Financial Secretary, who is usually very courteous, is trying to hide himself behind a mythical rule of order on the ground that it might be used against him. I am asking the Front Bench, if I may—

The Chairman: Is this a point of order?

Mr. Hall: Well, no. I am trying to ascertain whether it is any use our discussing this Clause, whether we are to have a reply from the Front Bench opposite or whether what the hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago is his last word on this Clause, because, if so, quite frankly, our proceedings are being reduced to a farce.

The Chairman: I am sorry if that is the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman of my conduct in the Chair. There is no farce as far as I am concerned. I try to do my best to carry out the practice of the House. The Financial Secretary raised a point of order to ask me if he could range wider than the terms of this Clause, and my answer was "No." I have been trying to prevent that happening for the last hour or so.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Jay: If I may return, with great respect, to the point which I tried to make, I was suggesting that we should bring ourselves back to this Clause, and I submit to you, Sir Charles, in all earnestness that, since the substance of the Clause is that £500 million should be issued, we must be able to discuss the issue of that sum of £500 million by the Public Works Loan Commissioners and the basis and fashion upon which it can be done. We do suggest, and I hope that you will agree, that it must at least be possible to do that, or it would not be possible to discuss anything on this Clause, which is, in my view, the most substantial part of the Bill. Would it not be possible to proceed on that basis?

The Chairman: I have made the point as clearly as I can. I do not rule unfairly, and, when hon. Members stray a little wide, I do not stop them instantly; in fact, I am rather lenient. I think I have made the point perfectly clear. I think the Committee knows quite well what is the rule. It is no personal interest to me whether the matter is discussed or not. I am simply trying to carry out my duty, and it is being made very difficult for me.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Has it not always been held to be not very useful for hon. and right hon Gentlemen to ask the Chair to give rulings on hypothetical points of order? Would it not have been more useful on his part, and more helpful to you, Sir Charles, as well as to us, if the Financial Secretary had endeavoured to reply to the discussion which has so far proceeded, relying upon you to stop him if he strayed beyond the bounds of order, instead of putting to you a hypothetical question which could only result in a hypothetical answer?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows that I can only call hon. Members who rise to their feet, and that I have very little power to make them sit down again.

Mr. Silverman: I am not quite sure whether I follow the full import of all of that, but the Financial Secretary did, as far as I remember, rise to his feet and ask you whether he would be in order if he did so-and-so. It was on that basis that I suggested that what he was doing was to appeal to you for a hypothetical ruling upon a hypothetical event which so far had not occurred.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps I may save time if I am allowed to make two submissions. The first is that I asked specifically whether I could reply to a question which an hon. Member had put to me, which, in my submission, is not hypothetical but practical; and, secondly, it may relieve the anxieties of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), whose enthusiasm to hear from me is most touching, if I say that I am most anxious to catch your eye, Sir Charles, to reply to the debate.

Mr. S. Silverman: May not hon. Members normally assume that, if a question put in debate is in order—and it must be in order unless the occupant of the Chair stops the hon. Member from putting it—if that question is in order, normally, the reply will be in order, too? The right hon. Gentleman would surely have been of greater assistance if he had endeavoured to give the answer, which he says he was most anxious to give and which I am sure he is still most anxious to give, relying on you, Sir Charles, to stop him.

The Chairman: I quite agree that, if a question is in order, the answer to it must be, but, if the question is not in order, the answer is also out of order.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It is a long time, Sir Charles, since you called on me to speak on this Clause, but, fortunately, I still recollect what it was I intended to say.
What I want to say, in the first instance, is to express my appreciation to the Financial Secretary. It will be recalled that in Committee on Clause 1 of


last year's Bill I complained that we were handicapped because the annual Report of the Public Works Loan Board for the current year was not available at that time. I am happy to be able to pay tribute to the Financial Secretary. He gave an undertaking last year that he would see what could be done to remedy the position this year. On this occasion, for the first time, the annual Report of the Board was available to hon. Members before this Bill was presented to the House.
That is as far as I can go in congratulating the hon. Gentleman. One or two points which I made about Clause 1 of last year's Bill have, so far as I can judge, not yet received adequate attention. The Financial Secretary said last year that he would give these matters his attention and that I could not fairly expect him to give an answer about them there and then. He has now had 12 months in which to meditate upon the points I made, which are just as relevant now as them were when they were made on the last occasion.

The Chairman: That is not quite accurate. Last year undue latitude was allowed.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I had no difficulty with the Chair last year when I was dealing with the activities of the Public Works Loan Commissioners who are referred to in Clause 1. I want to direct a few remarks to the question of the existence of this body. They appear to be in the key position in reference to the whole Bill and especially to this Clause.
The Public Works Loan Board consists of a number of eminent gentlemen, including my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). I have the highest regard for my hon. Friend, but I wish that he could, in the course of his remarks on Clause 1, have told us what it is exactly that the Commissioners do. How often, if ever, do they meet? What do they do when they do meet?

Sir William Darling: Make bad debts.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: That may well be.

Mr. Ede: So do some drapers.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It seems to me that the activities of this Commission merit a somewhat closer scrutiny. There are on it a number of eminent gentlemen, including my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, and we should like to know what they are doing. I should like my hon. Friend to tell us what has been happening during the period while he has been a member of this Board. I should like him to tell us to what extent the continued existence of the Commission is justified.
The Civil Estimates show that the Commission costs in the form of salaries, travelling expenses and legal charges no less a sum than £53,000 a year. That is more, by £4,300, than it was in the previous year. That figure is all the more significant when it is remembered that the staff has been reduced from 93 to 88.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Wages have gone up.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: That may well be. In achieving this result the services of two messengers and three typists have been dispensed with, but the higher ranges have been left intact.
It strikes me as very odd that, at a time when we have a Government pledged to ruthless measures of economy, no attempt has been made to examine whether or not the continued existence of this Commission is justified. It is distressing to find—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The continuation of the existence of the Commission is determined by another Act of Parliament and not by Clause 1 of this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The Public Works Loan Commissioners are empowered by the Clause under discussion to issue a sum not exceeding £500 million. To discharge their duties under this Clause it appears to me that £53,000 is to be spent in the form of salaries, and that a staff of 88 people—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is out of order. The only question before us is that of the money issued to the Commissioners.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As it is likely that the amount of money to be distributed through the Commissioners will be


less this year than in previous years, because local authorities will be able to go into the open market to raise money instead of to the Public Works Loan Board, the volume of requests or demands for loans is likely to go down at a time when the cost of administering this service is going up. That seems to me to call for some explanation.
The Report of the Public Works Loan Board for 1951–52 indicates that 19,336 applications were made for loans amounting to £475 million.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is a point that may well be raised on a Supply Day, but it does not arise on this Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If you will be good enough to refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT for 28th November, 1951, Vol. 494, columns 1581–2 onwards, you will see that it was with the distinct approval of the then occupant of the Chair that I was permitted to deal with all the points with which I am trying to deal now. If it was in order last year may I ask why it is not in order this year?

The Deputy-Chairman: That question has already been dealt with by the Chairman of Ways and Means when he was in the Chair. He has already said that greater latitude was allowed last year and that the debate is narrower this year.

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point. Surely, the rules of order do not change from year to year.

The Deputy-Chairman: I agree. The rules of order do not change, but the rules of order were allowed too wide a latitude last year.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not know where that takes us. Do we understand now that the occupant of the Chair today is reflecting upon the conduct of the occupant of the Chair a year ago? It seems to me that a useful discussion was had last year and that it drew from the Government representative in the course of the debate an undertaking with regard to what was being raised. It really would be extremely surprising if requests were made, arguments advanced and the Government of the day gave an undertaking in respect of them and then, a year later, it was out of order to inquire about the effect of the undertaking.

The Deputy-Chairman: A Ruling has already been given this afternoon, and I am bound by that.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am not disputing the Ruling. If I interpret it aright the discussion on Clause 1 is restricted as compared with last year, in that any discussion as to interest rate is not permitted. What I am seeking to do is not to discuss in the slightest degree the interest rate, but the machinery which the Committee has been asked to accept.

5.0 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: It goes further than that. It is not merely the interest rates which are excluded. The discussion is restricted to what is in the Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As the Clause refers to the existence of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, may I take it that any reference or discussion about the duties of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, or the manner in which they discharge their duties under this Clause, will be ruled out of order? That was certainly not the impression given to the Committee when an exactly similar point was raised last year. It is definitely mentioned in the Clause that the Public -Works Loan Commissioners are given certain powers. I am not disputing the necessity for giving these people certain powers. What I am seeking to do is to examine the way in which they are exercising those powers to which this Committee is now being asked to agree.

The Deputy-Chairman: There is nothing about powers in this Clause. The Commissioners derive their powers under different statutes. There is nothing about their powers at all in this Clause.

Mr. Jay: I do hope that we may have some discussion on matters of substance here, and not entirely on points of order, of which we have had enough. Therefore, in the hope of achieving that, and in the spirit of what was said by your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I submit to you that this Clause does say, and I am sorry to have to repeat it:
There may be issued by the National Debt Commissioners for the purpose of local loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners…
these large sums of money. Therefore, we are concerned with local loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. It


must therefore be in order to discuss the manner in which those loans are made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. That is all we are asking for, and I am sure that you will agree with that.

The Deputy-Chairman: What is in this Clause can certainly be discussed, and the substance of the Clause can be discussed. But not the powers or the appointment of the Commissioners.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am very happy to hear you say that, because there is set up machinery which enables the Public Works Loan Commissioners to exercise such powers as they possess. I am not arguing as to the nature of their powers or the morality or validity of the work they do. I seek to direct the attention of the Committee to the machinery by virtue of which this Clause is enabled to operate when it gets on to the Statute Book.
The machine consists of a staff, of a Public Works Loan Board composed of some 88 civil servants, involving the expenditure of £53,000 in salaries and expenses. What I am doubtful about is this. The report of the Public Works Loan Board makes it quite clear that the applications for loans were mostly from local authorities which is quite understandable. These applications are from public works, and here I quote from the actual Report of the Public Works Loan Board
which, before they could be carried out, needed the approval of a Government Department and Departmental consents to the borrowing of the money. In many cases the consent of the Treasury under the Control of Borrowing Order, 1947, was also required.
With so many consents having to be obtained from rival Government Departments it is difficult for me to understand what it is that the Public Works Loan Board does do, except to be a fifth, or, indeed, a sixth wheel in this cumbrous conveyance, as a result of which, this Public Works Loans Bill, is to be put into effect. I would ask the Financial Secretary whether he has investigated the position since last year—

Mr. Houghton: Has my hon. and gallant Friend joined the "hatchet group"?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am suggesting that, if there is any axeing to be done, it

should be done where it is not likely to do anybody any harm. And it seems to me that one of the bodies which might easily be dispensed with is the Public Works Loan Board itself. Because all the work, all the decisions of policy have to be taken by someone else.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member is getting back again to the powers and constitution of the Public Works Loan Commissioners.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am sorry. I was carried away by the interruption of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I hope he will let me conclude the argument I am trying to address to the Committee. I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to tell the Committee whether this cumbrous machinery is not a little out of date by now, and whether a useful saving could be made without detriment to the applications of local authorities.
It is a regrettable thing that when an opportunity presents itself of introducing some change such as this, so few hon. Members are present on the Government benches to support the kind of proposal or attitude which I am asking the Committee to accept. I therefore hope that we may be vouchsafed some information by the Financial Secretary relating to the points I have tried to raise.

Mr. G. Lindgren: I only recently came into the Chamber—

Mr. George Brown: Very sensible, too.

Mr. Lindgren: —and I hesitate therefore to enter into the debate, and particularly to come to the rescue of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. There are a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite to whose rescue I would come, but the Financial Secretary is not high up on the list.
I was surprised to hear that part of the speech which I did hear from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). Let me say, from a fairly extensive experience of local government, that the Public Works Loan Board has functioned effectively and efficiently for local authorities. There have not been the problems to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred. If a project has received the sanction of the appropriate Government Department


the services of the Public Works Loan Board have been available to the local authority freely and easily.
I am concerned that there should be sufficient funds available to local authorities if they require moneys for various projects. They have the opportunity of going into the open market, of which advantage has been taken by many local authorities in Private Bills. It is equally true that there are many local authorities who like the opportunity of going into the open market if they think that market is favourable to them. Local authorities are not the only people in this world who want the best of both worlds—

Mr. G. Brown: I do, too.

Mr. Lindgren: So far as local authorities are concerned they want to be able to go into the open market if they think it will be beneficial to them. But they fear that if there is a restriction on the availability of money through the Public Works Loan Board the market will harden against them, and they will have to pay higher prices in the open market than they otherwise would do. Therefore, local authorities want to be assured—and I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to assure them during this debate—that there will always be available, in the light of the Government investment programme, sufficient moneys for the local authorities to take up through the Public Works Loan Board as they receive sanction from various Government Departments for work to be carried out.
I would like the Financial Secretary to give that assurance, which I am certain would allay the fears of many local authorities. They are afraid that under the restrictions of this Bill they are likely to be forced on to the open market and made to pay a higher rate of interest. To put it bluntly, they want the Public Works Loan Board available to them to hold the market at a favourable rate of interest.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Perhaps in view of the great vigilance of the Chair this afternoon, and the great vigilance of the Financial Secretary, who has been more anxious than the Chair to confine the debate within very narrow limits—

The Deputy-Chairman: The Chair was not concerned to confine the debate

within narrow limits, but within the limits of the Clause.

Mr. Jenkins: I can understand the position of the Chair, and I would not dispute that for one moment. But I think while your predecessor was in the Chair, Mr. Hopkin Morris, the Financial Secretary was extremely vigilant in the interests of the Chair, and seemed to wish to go beyond confining the discussion within the limits of the Clause.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) recently read Clause 1 (1), and perhaps, in order that it may be obvious how directly my remarks are related to it, I may recall to the Committee what the words are:
There may be issued by the National Debt Commissioners for the purpose of local loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole the sum of five hundred million pounds.
One of the points which, I think, was not discussed and about which we should get some more information today is whether that phrase, "for the purpose of local loans" is now going to include all local loans, as it has done in the past, or whether it is merely now going to be a certain number of local loans.
The Financial Secretary gave us some help on Second Reading. I know that he is always as lucid as Government policy enables him to be. If there is any lack of lucidity in his speeches to the Committee or to the House, it is because he has got a confused brief, and not because his own mind is confused. On this occasion he appeared rather confused, and the reason is that Government policy on this matter is in a state of great confusion.
Obviously, there is a change envisaged which will affect the phrase "for the purpose of local loans," and subsection (1) is not going to mean exactly the same thing this year as it meant in past years. That is clear from the statement we have had. What the Financial Secretary was asked to explain was whether all the local authorities who wanted to come could still come under this umbrella, as has been the case in the past, and that local authorities could choose freely whether or not to exercise the option of going to the market, or whether any pressure would be applied to them to go to the open market.
I do not think he succeeded in clearing the matter up satisfactorily, because there seems to be in the minds of the Government and of supporters of the Government a number of confused ideas as to exactly what may be achieved by this change. It is suggested in some quarters of the Press that the object may be to have a general disinflationary effect by forcing some local authorities to go to the market and pay higher rates of interest, thereby squeezing out certain loans. That would be one possibility, and that is in the minds of some supporters of the Government who want a harder money policy.
What also seems to be in the minds of supporters of the Government is that by this new means of finance some additional finance will be available for local authorities, who will still get money from the Public Works Loan Board, but in addition some of the big local authorities who might wish to go to the market would be able to get some additional finance over and above that which the Public Works Loan Board would make available.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: It is for all local authorities.

Mr. Jenkins: The right is there for all local authorities to go to the market, but I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that, in practice, if any local authority preferred to exercise the option it would be the larger authorities who would prefer to go to the market in this way. That idea may be in the mind of the Government, but it is quite a contradictory view to the first one that I put forward.
There is a third point which seems to me to be in the minds of some of the Government supporters, if not in the minds of the Government themselves, and that is the view that by making this change of policy and allowing possibly some local authorities to go to the markets for loans they would be able to do away with the large Budget surplus and make very substantial remissions in taxation. That was the point put on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who I am sorry is not in his place this afternoon. He called in aid of this view the opinion expressed by the right hon. Member for Blackburn,

West (Mr. Assheton), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Law).
For the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West, who has suddenly joined our debate, I will repeat what I was saying, that there is a view among certain Government supporters that if local authorities went to the open market for their loans that would enable the Government to manage with a much smaller Budget surplus, thereby enabling substantial remissions of taxation.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: My own view is that it would enable us to, have a smaller Budget surplus than otherwise would be the case, but how much smaller during the first year of the operation of this new scheme I cannot say. I should myself not expect it to be a very high figure in the first year.

Mr. Jenkins: I am very glad to have some guidance from the right hon. Gentleman as to his own views on that point. I think the view which was taken by the hon. Member for Kidderminster was that to the extent that local authorities went to the market rather than to the Public Works Loan Board would be the amount by which a smaller Budget surplus could be allowed. I think that is a very fallacious view, and the "Economist" this week takes the view that it is also a very fallacious argument. I am afraid that it uses rather harsh language about the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends who take that view. It talks about "misplaced Budgetary hopes among the economically illiterate." That is the language of the "Economist," I myself would not use such strong arguments about the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, but while I do not approve of the language, I think the idea behind it is certainly one which we must accept.
We on this side of the House realise that the Financial Secretary has to deal delicately with his right hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn, West and Haltemprice in present circumstances, but I do not think that that view is really one which the Financial Secretary shares, and I hope he will make his position clear. Their view may be that to push these local loans into the open market would generally lead to a new series of private


savings, or to a smaller total of local authority borrowing, but there is no reason to suppose that those results would automatically follow. I have no doubt that if neither of these results accrued there would be no less need for a Budget surplus above the line than is now the case.
I hope very much that the Financial Secretary, without confining his intervention merely to points of order, will lucidly explain the matter further to us. He should not try to use the protection of the Chair to avoid speaking again, and we regret the fact that—

The Deputy-Chairman: The Financial Secretary is certainly not protected by the Chair. All that the Chair is seeking to do is to keep this discussion within the limits of the Clause.

Mr. Jenkins: We, of course, completely understand that hon. Members on either side of the House or the Financial Secretary, would be out of order in going beyond the Clause, and that they would then be pulled up by the Chair, but the position which arose before you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, assumed the Chair was that the Financial Secretary got up and almost asked in advance to be called to order, which did not point to the fact that he was very eager to take part in our debate. I almost felt that it was a matter of regret that he and not the Minister of State for Economic Affairs is in charge of the Bill, because I am sure the Minister of State for Economic Affairs would never try to use the rules of order in order not to make an intervention in the House.
I hope the Financial Secretary will not do so either, but that he will come to the Box and give us a lucid and forthright explanation as to what is in his mind and in the mind of the Government about the change which may come in the meaning of this phrase "for the purpose of local loans" during the ensuing year. Is the Board to continue to supply all local loans? If not, is the object to be that of getting a smaller Budget surplus, to make a larger total of funds available to local authorities, or, by using the pressure of high interest rates, to squeeze certain local authorities out of the market?

Mr. James McInnes: I rise to deal with the question of charges which borrowers have to pay to the Public Works Loan Board. I know

that a Ruling has been given that we cannot deal with the question of interest charges, so I must confine myself to the question of the fees and Stamp Duty which these borrowers have to pay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) indicated that, in his opinion, the Public Works Loan Board was a most respected and efficient instrument of considerable value to local authorities. That I accept to the full, but I believe, as I hope to show in the next moment or two, that the Public Works Loan Board is an unnecessarily expensive instrument for local authorities, If we take the question of the fees every borrower has to pay, 4s. per cent. in respect of fees and 5s. per cent. in respect of—

The Deputy-Chairman: This Clause deals only with the issuing of money to the Public Works Loan Board, and it will not be in order, therefore, on this Clause, to discuss payments by the Board.

Mr. McInnes: I understood that fees are payments to the Board, although Stamp Duty is not; but as far as fees are concerned, they are payments to the Public Works Loan Board. Indeed, I have been in communication with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am informed that the operational costs of the Public Works Loan Board, which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) referred to—

The Deputy-Chairman: There may be an appropriate time to raise this issue, but it does not arise on this Clause, which provides for payment by the National Debt Commissioners to the Public Works Loan Board, that is all.

Mr. James MacColl: I want only to raise a point on which the Financial Secretary may be able to assist, and that is the adequacy of the sum of £500 million, and how it is arrived at, particularly in view of the remarks, with which, in general, I agree, my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) made. It seems to me that there are very considerable dangers, as he said, in discouraging the local authorities from the use of the facilities of the Public Works Loan Board and putting them on to the open market. Some authorities will normally have grown accustomed to using the facilities provided out of this sum.
We remember that before the war local authorities—some local authorities—could get very badly stung through Mr. Hatry and rather fraudulent conduct in making local loans under private enterprise, and I think it would be a very great pity if the attitude which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) appeared to have—

Mr. Pannell: I do not want to hold up my hon. Friend, but he mentioned Mr. Hatry. I thought that, generally, those charges were disproved, but in so far as my hon. Friend is bandying names about the Chamber it seems to me he ought to offer some evidence—

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot go on discussing Mr. Hatry.

Mr. MacColl: I am sorry. I was referring in general terms to the Hatry incident. I have not refreshed my memory of the exact details of the various charges that led to Mr. Hatry's disappearance from public life for a fairly protracted period, but I do know that some did suffer—

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will leave that point now and come back to the Clause.

Mr. MacColl: I gladly will come back to the Clause, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but I think it is relevant to the question of what are to be the indirect effects of the fixing of this global figure to £500 million. I fear that one of the effects may be to push on to the open market local authorities who would be better advised and would, in normal circumstances, want to use the skilled services of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and have at their disposal his wisdom and advice as a colleague of the Commissioners.
I was particularly interested in the other point my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford made when he quoted the "Economist" and the rather severe comments which it made on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) and, by implication, on the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster, and as to what they thought would be the effect on the Government account of directing local authorities into the open market. I understood my hon. Friend to say we could not

expect to have good results from a policy of this sort unless some further vehicle in the local setting were available—some other means of obtaining funds which the local authorities could use.
Then my hon. Friend, to my very great surprise, sat down—because of all people in this Chamber at the moment I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have been the very first person to draw attention to the achievements of his own local authority in attracting savings through a municipal bank.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will help us here. If it is possible to attract local savings by means of encouraging the local authorities to establish municipal banks and in that way to attract and to rely on the local enthusiasm and patriotism of the local citizens, and draw in local savings through municipal banks for the services of local authorities, and make them a reservoir of credit on which they can draw and thus meet the criticism the "Economist" made, that will be a really creative and constructive piece of policy—the first creative, constructive piece of policy I have seen the Financial Secretary put forward. If that is what he is going to do I hope he will tell us so, to enable us to make a further estimate of the adequacy of this Bill. Unless he is going to do something of the sort it does not seem very adequate.
In the case of rating and valuation we have had a kind of preliminary dance before a fundamental change of policy is made in the methods of valuation. It may be that this is a preliminary dance before there is to be an epoch-making change in the attitude of the Government towards savings, particularly in establishing municipal banks. I hope that that is what is behind it. I hope we shall be told so, because I think that that would make it much easier for us to accept this figure which, in the absence of these assurances, causes me some disquiet as to what effect it will have on local borrowing.

Mr. Jay: I think we have now, happily, reached clarity about what we can properly discuss on this Clause. I shall, therefore, confine myself most strictly to the local loans made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners up to the sum of £500 million. We have, after all, a duty to examine the use of public money of


this kind, particularly when large sums are involved, and although we must keep, of course, within the proper confines of the Clause, we ought not either to neglect that duty.
Indeed, I am rather surprised that there is not here a larger number of those hon. Members opposite whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) calls the "hatchet group" who are devoted, so they say, to the cause of economy. I can only suppose that the Minister of State of Economic Affairs has been ruled out of order this afternoon—by the Government Chief Whip, of course, Mr. Hopkin Morris, and not by yourself.
5.30 p.m.
I wanted to ask the Financial Secretary two questions. The first refers to the sums included within this £500 million, and it follows on from an argument I had with the Financial Secretary on this point during the Second Reading. The Financial Secretary may recall that I pointed out to him the figure of £360 million in the Financial Statement for the year 1952–53, which is, of course, the year with which we are now concerned, as being the total of the loans to local authorities.
I pointed out that that was a figure slightly less than in the previous year, and I asked him how that coincided with the statements we had from the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who was responsible for the biggest element in the £500 million, that a larger number of local authority houses are being built this year, and also from the Minister of Education, who was concerned with the next biggest element in the total, that the school building programme has also risen.
The hon. Gentleman gave an answer to that question on the Second Reading which did not actually meet the point. That was, I think, due to a misunderstanding. I am sure he thought it did meet the point, but what he said was this. He said that I had referred to the figure of £360 million in the Financial Statement, and he asked how it could be reconciled with the £399 million lent by the Public Works Loan Board since last year. He explained that that was due to the technical presentation of the figures.
If I may put the point to the hon. Gentleman again, that was not the ques-

tion that was puzzling me, and I think this is very relevant to the use of these moneys. What I wondered was whether or not the total being actually spent this year out of this £500 million on housing, education and other purposes, is less than last year, as the Financial Statement would appear to suggest, or whether it is more, as the statements of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Education appear to suggest. That is my first question to the hon. Gentleman, and it comes of course very strictly within the ambit of this £500 million this year.
My second question concerns the problem of the facilities given by the Board in issuing these loans, which has already been touched on by my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) and Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). This, I think, is the most serious point before us on this Clause. Anxieties have been raised in our minds and in the minds of local authorities which have not been entirely allayed by what the Financial Secretary has already been able to say to us.
Though the Financial Secretary tells us this year that these loans are going to be issued in exactly the same way by the Public Works Loan Commissioners as previously, and that all that is happening under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act—and I think our difficulty arose from the reversal of the order of these Acts—is that greater freedom is being given, there are some people who fear that though that may be true at the moment, this is the prelude—one writer on this subject has said that this is paving the way—to a different arrangement in which the local authorities would be forced into the outside market by variation of the methods, terms and conditions on which these loans are issued.
On the Second Reading the Financial Secretary, in replying to that question, said that that suggestion had been made, and then he went on to deny it but he denied it, in my opinion, in a not exceedingly convincing manner. He said:
The whole intention behind this is that we should proceed by agreement in financing work which I stress—and this is very material to this matter—is work undertaken subsequent to the loan approval having been given by the proper central department. Therefore, I think that hon. Members need not be unduly dis-


turbed at that aspect of the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1077.]
No doubt that is satisfactory so far as it goes, but it does not go so far as to say that there is going to be no worsening of the terms and conditions and no change in the method by which these local loans will in the present year be issued by the Local Loans Commissioners.
There are two reasons why these anxieties about the issue of loans under this Clause remain in our minds. The first consists of the arguments advanced by hon. Members belonging to the "hatchet school," or whatever the Financial Secretary likes to call his controversialists behind him, as to the possibility of reducing taxation by taking these loans out of the Budget altogether. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough has already referred to that, and I am not going into that argument because I think it has already been quite convincingly shown that it is only among what the "Economist" calls the illiterates—that is not my phrase but the "Economist's "that it is supposed that any smaller budget surplus would be required, simply because these loans were made not through the Public Works Loan Commissioners but in some other way.
The other cause of our anxieties, and the reason why I am repeating this question to the Financial Secretary, is that there have been repeated statements in the Press that, in fact, there is going to be a change in the general method of making these loans. I read some quotations to the hon. Gentleman last week, and he replied that he was not responsible for what was written in the financial Press. Nevertheless, we have in this matter, and in some other matters, found before that Government policy is foreshadowed in the columns of certain newspapers and subsequently confirmed by hon. Members opposite.
Therefore, I am only going to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to some further statements on this subject which actually appeared in the "Daily Express" on the day after we had our debate. This was a direct report of the proceedings on the Bill and referred to the point which is, in fact, the substance of this Clause. It mentioned that hon. Members opposite were hoping to get very large economies in the

Budget by switching these loans from the Public Works Loan Commissioners to the City of London.
It then quoted the hon. Gentleman as having said that all these sinister designs were very far from his thoughts, and then it went on to say this. I only propose to quote two sentences, Mr. Hopkin Morris, which it seems to me are relevant, and I am sure that when you have heard them you will agree that they are relevant.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am very doubtful at the moment. I am willing to hear them, but I am doubtful whether this is relevant at all.

Mr. Jay: I think so, because this is the main anxiety we have about the way in which these loans are issued. I will only read two sentences, and I am sure that you will agree with me, Mr. Hopkin Morris. The "Daily Express" said:
A powerful group of Tory back benchers who are urging the economy drive regard the Bill"—
that is, this Bill—
as the first measure to effect major economies by returning more power and responsibility to local authorities.
The second sentence is this:
The key point in the Tories' 2s. off the Income Tax plan is to slash Government spending by cutting loans to local authorities for house building.
In view of the last words, I submit that that is relevant, and it has reawakened in my mind the anxieties which we felt. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with his usual skill of remaining within the bounds of order, will be able to give us a rather more satisfactory assurance this afternoon.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I must say that I was most touched by the solicitude of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) that I should intervene in this debate, and perhaps a little disappointed by the fact that, now I have your permission so to do, Mr. Hopkin Morris, the right hon. Gentleman has not found it possible to be present. But life is full of disappointments.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) reverted, in a most skilful promenade around the perimeter of the rules of order, to quoting newspaper articles. I should have thought that a


right hon. Gentleman who himself contributed a column would appreciate that the views expressed in those columns are the views of the very distinguished persons who so contribute, and that it is not reasonable to expect Her Majesty's Government to comment in detail or in general upon the various expressions of opinion which those distinguished people, including the right hon. Gentleman himself, ventilate in the public Press.
This Clause—and as I understand it this is its only point—makes provision for £500 million in respect of loans to be issued from the Public Works Loan Board during the period, whatever it may be, that will elapse between the coming into force of this Bill as an Act of Parliament and the coming into force of the next Bill of this type. The real issue which arises here is in connection with the provision of £500 million for this purpose.
On Second Reading I ventured to suggest to the House one or two considerations which I thought were material to that figure. I think the House was in general agreement that we had to attain a balance between two conflicting considerations. There was the consideration that adequate funds should be provided—and let me say at once that it is certainly not the intention of the present Government, which is proud of the success of its housing drive, to cripple the finances of the local authorities who Play so major a part in that highly successful housing drive—and equally that it would be wrong to make provision for too high a figure, because that would result in the control and discussion of this matter being taken away from the House for too long a period.
If I may adopt once more the term which has been used several times in this debate, the procedure is happily flexible. It is not, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) seemed to think, an annual Bill, and it does not run for any specific period. It runs only until the next Bill, and therefore if we misjudge the adequacy of the figure we provide in this Clause the consequences are not so disastrous as they would be if this were an annual Bill. All it would mean would be that the day on which it would be necessary to come forward with another Bill might be affected.
Various comments were made with respect to the Board. It is not for me to

comment upon the Board, and I am in some degree grateful for that fact because it relieves me from the necessity of justifying to this Committee what was said by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), whom I have always thought was capable of doing his own justification. He is, as he was able to disclose to us, quite a distinguished member of the Board, and we are all grateful to him and his colleagues for their public service.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I do not think the hon. Gentleman meant to say that I said that I was a very distinguished member of the Board.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may think, I doubt if he would think I meant to say that.
I hope I may be allowed to pass to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and say that all the matters which were referred to last year have been carefully considered and that the general view is that in present circumstances—as has been suggested from his own side of the House—the Board serves a valuable purpose.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) indicated his unwillingness to come to my rescue. I might reply to him: Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis, which I am sure would be appreciated on the Liberal benches were they occupied at this moment.

Mr. Paget: Translate.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure no hon. Member on the Opposition benches requires a translation. I would not be so discourteous as to proffer it. I am sure that all hon. Members opposite would translate it with such felicity and skill that it would be an impertinence on my part so to do.
The point which was stressed in several speeches—and here again I appreciate that in view of a ruling from the Chair I cannot go very far—really amounted to suggestions that we were not providing enough money in this Clause because we intended to deprive the local authorities of use of the Public Works Loan Board. There are two sufficient answers to that. In the first place, we are providing this sum of £500 million in this very Clause.


It is the sum which was provided last year and which, as I told the House on Second Reading, will not be exhausted until about the end of January.
That is a perfectly solid indication that we intend to see to it that the activities of local authorities are not handicapped in the way which has been suggested. I might avoid getting into difficulties on this question by reminding the Committee that this matter was raised on Second Reading and was very fully discussed, and that in the course of that debate I made a very clear statement of our intentions. I think that that statement has been generally understood, and I hope it has relieved any anxieties.
There may well have been some anxieties; people sometimes have anxieties on most unsubstantial ground; but I think the Committee can be assured above all by these two facts. First, this Clause provides the massive sum of £500 million. Secondly, it would be so contrary to the whole policy of this Government—which I am sure all hon. Members are glad in their hearts is having such a success with its housing programme—that it is really quite fantastic to suggest that what the Government and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government are doing in this connection should for some odd schizophrenic reason be interfered with in the way that has been suggested.
Now that the matter has been discussed, I cannot feel that any such apprehensions are reasonable. Equally, I cannot attempt to catch up with every suggestion that might be made from any quarter. The views of the Government on this matter have been stated very clearly and at length—indeed, some hon. Members may think perhaps at inordinate length—and I hope that in those circumstances the Committee will indicate their agreement with the view of the Government that adequate funds will be made available by giving us this Clause.

Mr. Jay: Could the hon. Gentleman add two points to his assurances? First, does he disown the doctrine of certain hon. Gentlemen behind him that large economies in the Budget and a reduction in taxation could be secured merely by switching these loans from the Public Works Loan Board into the open market?

I do not think that he does accept that doctrine, but if he would disown it it would allay our anxieties. Could he also deal with the discrepancy between the £360 million in the Financial Memorandum and the claims which the Ministry of Housing were making?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the first question, I do not propose to state policy by disowning the statements of other people; but the right hon. Gentleman will recall that in my winding-up speech on Second Reading I said—and I am speaking from memory—that the expectations of improved budgetary consequences which some hon. Members on both sides of the House had indulged in were not sound.
On the second question, I tried to explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the figure in the Financial Memorandum is the figure of issues to the Public Works Loan Board, and of course the material figure for local authority activity is the figure of the issues from it. The two figures are not the same, because the Board is not only lending money but receiving repayments.
In general, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, and indeed it is one of the reasons for the urgency of this Bill, as I explained on Second Reading, that the whole level of local authority capital expenditure is curving rapidly upwards. I indicated that on Second Reading, with particular reference to the provision of the figure in Clause 2.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(LIMIT ON COMMITMENTS BY PUBLIC WORKS LOAN COMMISSIONERS.)

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out "one thousand and fifty," and to insert "eleven hundred."
We have put down this Amendment in order to elucidate the present rather obscure position arising out of the relation between this Bill and the discontinuance of the Local Loans Act, 1945, by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. We are concerned in this Amendment with the figure of £1,050 million which is contained in Clause (2, b). Before coming to my main point, I should like to ask the Financial Secretary one question about the reasons for the


increase in this figure from £950 million to £1,050 million in the present Bill.
In his statement on Second Reading, the Financial Secretary said that it was necessary to have a margin to allow for contingencies. So far as it seemed to me, he did not fully answer my question, which was why these contingencies are £100 million higher this year than they were last year. It is the case, of course, that this figure has gone up by £100 million in each of the last three years.
I gave as an explanation in 1950, not that the actual volume of work is increasing very much, but that local authorities were able to plan their future commitments further ahead. It may be that that is the explanation now, but we would like to be sure that that is so. If it is not, we should like to have the contrary explanation.
Our main difficulty here is that this change in the method of financing these local authority programmes is being made this year. Having finished with the previous discussion, we will assume that there is to be an increased freedom for the local authorities to go to the open market, but that the more or less corresponding facilities are to be available to them as far as the Public Works Loan Board is concerned. Presumably, therefore, it is the belief of the Government that some use will be made in the course of the year of the open market, and to that extent a rather less requirement will fall upon the Public Works Loan Board.
Our complaint in this whole matter—and this is strictly relevant to this Amendment and is the reason why we have put it down—is that the Government this year have reversed the normal and, it seems to us, the logical order of these two Bills. Hitherto, we have always had the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill before us and the House has taken a decision on that. I emphasise that it is the House and not the Government that decides whether or not to approve of that Bill.
We then came to the Public Works Loans Bill and the question of whether other facilities were to be open to the local authorities had been settled. In the last few years no other facilities have been open to them, so that we knew clearly in determining these figures whether or not there were alternative sources of finance available.
This year, however, we are in a position still of not knowing whether this change

in policy will be made. I apologise for referring to this, but it is essential to the argument because it illustrates the awkward position in which we have been put. Although the House has given a Second Reading to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill it has not approved the later stages of that Bill, and therefore at present we do not know whether or not this change in fact will be made and will be passed into law.
It was for that reason that we felt it necessary to put down this Amendment. Suppose the House decided on the Third Reading or on one of the remaining stages of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill not to make the change which the Government recommend. If that occurred the local authorities would not have the freedom, as the Financial Secretary calls it, to go into the City. Therefore, presumably, that is another argument why their need for finance from the Public Works Loan Board under this Clause should be increased.
It was to meet that eventuality that we—having more foresight than the Government, as it seems to us—put down this Amendment in order to help the Government and the local authorities. It increases the total overall figure of the financial commitments from £1,050 million to £1,100 million. It is impossible for us to estimate just how much finance the Government thought would have gone to the City if the House approved the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which we have not yet approved.
In introducing this point on Second Reading, the Financial Secretary himself argued quite clearly the precise contention which I am making now—that it is impossible to determine this figure of £1,050 million unless one takes into account what is happening to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. He denied that at a later stage of the debate, but at that moment, no doubt owing to the course of the debate and the many points of order raised, he did not quite recall what he had said earlier
In his original speech the Financial Secretary said:
I am asking the House in this Bill"—
That is the Public Works Loan Bill—
to authorise the issue to the Public Works Loan Board of a certain sum of money—£500 million—and to authorise the commitment of £1,050 million.


That is the figure with which we are now dealing. Then he went on, quite rightly as it seems to me:
In my submission, it is clearly relevant to the question, aye or no, whether these figures are adequate that the House should say, aye or no, whether the Public Works Loan Board is going to be the only source from which local authorities, in substance, can borrow."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 958.]
I am sure that the Financial Secretary will agree that that means that we cannot decide this figure until the House has decided whether or not' the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is to become law in its present form. Therefore, we, on this Amendment that raises this point, ask the Financial Secretary what I twice have asked him and, I think, three times have asked the Leader of the House. It is the very simple question why the order of these Bills was reversed this year and the House put in this exceedingly awkward situation.
If, as it seems to me, it is just another piece of muddle and confusion by the Government, then if the Financial Secretary will tell us so we shall understand that confusion might very well have happened again. If there is another reason, though I have not the remotest idea of what it could be, perhaps he will tell us what it is. But if we receive no explanation on this point after we have asked this question so many times, and in view of the fact that the House has not taken a decision on the other Bill and that it is a decision for the House and not for the Government to take, we shall feel disposed to press the point in this Amendment.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Amendment would increase the figure provided for commitments in Clause 2 from £1,050 million to £1,100 million. As the right hon. Gentleman quite correctly stated, the provision in last year's Act was for £950 million, so that the Bill as it stands provides for a further increase of £100 million.
For the reasons which I gave at length on Second Reading, and which I hope I shall not have to inflict again on the Committee, we feel that £1,050 million is enough. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall that on Second Reading I, gave figures showing the rate at which commitments had been incurred, and they

seemed to indicate that a somewhat larger figure was necessary than that of last year's provision. Indeed, it is because of the running out of the authoritative commitments in the present Act—it is due to run out in the immediate future—that the Bill is necessary at the moment.
Obviously in those circumstances we should make some increase, and we have therefore proposed an increase of £100 million. We feel that that is sufficient, and if it is sufficient, that is adequate reason for not going further. We feel that it would be wrong to deprive the House of control over this matter for a period longer than necessary for practical purposes, and although this is a matter essentially of judgment and opinion rather than dogma, none the less, after very careful thought, we feel that £1,050 million is adequate, and, since it is adequate, that it would be wrong if the Committee, however well disposed that might show them to be towards the Government, forced on the Government authority for £50 million more than the Government desire.
The right hon. Gentleman reverted to the question of the order in which this Bill and the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill were being taken, and I hope we shall not revert also to the heat which that topic appeared to generate during the Second Reading debate. I think I may be allowed to say this in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, however: in the present circumstances, when account is taken of the urgency of the present Measure and of the fact that a different proposal underlies this Measure when compared with that of the last year—different in respect of the Local Loans Act—we felt that it was logically the right order. But we were anxious to meet the views of hon. Members opposite, as I think I am entitled to say we always are, and, as the Committee may recall, we sought to reverse the order in the Committee stage.
It may be recollected that when my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal announced the business last Thursday, he gave as the first Order for today the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill—that is to say, it would precede this Bill. As he made clear at the time, that was dependent on the Second Reading, which for many years


has been a formal stage, being taken in adequate time beforehand. I make no complaint, but hon. Members opposite decided otherwise.
Be that as it may, the fact that it was possible to take the Second Reading no earlier than last night meant that the House would very properly have resented having to take the Committee stage a few hours after the Second Reading. In any case, I believe there would have been technical difficulties. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not seek to make a grievance out of this, but if he does, I am entitled to point out that for the Committee stage, at any rate, we did our best to meet him, and it was not our fault that we were unable to do so.

Mr. Jay: While I am not making a grievance of it, if the Financial Secretary does not like that word, cannot he give some explanation of why, in the first instance, the Government decided to reverse the order?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening, I gave two reasons earlier in my speech, and I am happy to repeat them if it gives him any pleasure. We thought, first of all, that in the different circumstances in respect of the Local Loans Act—and this is a matter of judgment and opinion, and I would not seek to dictate them to the right hon. Gentleman any more than he would seek to dictate them to me—this was the better order. If local authorities are not to be handicapped in relation to their commitments, we must bear in mind the urgency of the present Measure, for it requires, if there is not to be a hold up, to become law something like one month before the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. We tried to meet the right hon. Gentleman and it is unfortunate that we were unable to do so—but at any rate it is not wholly our fault.
I think I can resolve his difficulty from a practical point of view by recalling to him, as I recalled on an earlier Clause, that this is not an annual Bill. If, as a result of other decisions taken on other Measures at other times by this House, it were to appear that the calculations we have made as to the amount required are inadequate, the only consequence would be that we should have to come back to the House a little' earlier than would otherwise be the case with the next

Measure. That might be some inconvenience to the Government, but I do not think it would be any inconvenience to the House, and we should certainly see that it was no inconvenience to local authorities.

Mr. Albu: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shall not keep the hon. Members very long, whoever may be called by the Chair, but perhaps it would be courteous if I summed up my remarks by saying that in those circumstances we feel that the figure which we arrived at very carefully—£1,050 million—is an adequate figure and, grateful though we are to the Opposition for seeking to force further authority upon us than we ourselves have requested, we cannot allow them to be so generous.

Mr. Albu: As the Financial Secretary said, this is not an annual Bill and therefore the sums which we include in the Clause might not be considered to be of vital importance, but I think I am right in saying that for many years it has by precedent almost become an annual Bill, and one can assume that the sums put into Clauses 1 and 2 are sums which Governments expect will roughly cover the required issues from the Public Works Loan Commissioners.
The Financial Secretary refuses to accept the Amendment on the ground that the figure of £1,050 million for total commitments is, in his view, sufficient for the coming 12 months, but in speaking on the Question "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill," he said that the curve of expenditure by local authorities, particularly on housing—for which he took credit for the Government—was rising fast, and therefore one assumes that the issues by the Public Works Loan Board will also increase—unless, of course, as a result of the non-renewal of the appropriate Section of the Local Loans Act, which we are in the middle of discussing, local authorities have to find their finance elsewhere.
If the expenditure and investment of local authorities is rising fast and there is not sufficient power with the Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance the funds—for, even granted that it would be possible to bring in another Bill in a short time, the Government might


have some difficulty in finding the time to do so—then I presume local authorities will be expected to obtain the funds elsewhere.
As some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, this raises considerable difficulties, because we all hope that the present ban on capital expenditure for industry will not last very long. We are all agreed that there has to be a very considerable increase in investment in industry, and the pressure by local authorities will be added to this pressure if industry themselves are in the market trying to raise money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), speaking on the Question "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill," pointed out, as I did on Second Reading, that these funds are not inexhaustible and that, if the Government expect the local authorities to go to the market for their funds, it will be all the more difficult for industry itself to raise funds at the same time and at reasonable terms—unless the Government really do restore what some of their hon. Friends have strongly demanded—discipline in the market—by allowing interest rates to rise very freely.
Some of us have been pointing out these rather obvious facts for some time, and all we have got is a certain amount of rather clownish abuse in the financial Press. Nevertheless, these are very real facts, and I should have thought that the Government would prefer to keep control of this very large amount of public investment in their own hands, so leaving the market much freer for industry to raise its funds.
The Financial Secretary said, in support of retaining the present figure of the limit of commitments from the fund, that he did not want to deprive the House of control of this investment. It seems to me that he is doing exactly the opposite by dropping this Section in the Local Loans Act, because he is thereby removing from the Treasury control of this local authority investment. I should have thought it would be better to increase the figure of the commitments allowed to the Public Works Loan Board in the way suggested by my right hon. Friend, so keeping within Treasury control this very important source of investment. The

effect of what the Government are doing is exactly the opposite of what the Financial Secretary apparently intended, and I suggest that he ought to look at this again.
These sorts of statements combined with these sorts of Measures only increase our suspicion that it is intended to do what the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), the right hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Law), the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and others on Second Reading wanted the Government to do, namely, to give up all control over these loans and restore the discipline of the market, which, as I pointed out on Second Reading, could only be done by a very radical reversal of the present distribution of the national income so as to provide very large private savings. What the Financial Secretary is doing is the exact opposite of what he is saying. He is removing control over these loans to some extent from the Treasury, and we do not know quite what other control is to be put in its place.
For these reason,. I hope the hon. Gentleman will think again about this Amendment, which seems to me to be necessary, even on his own estimates of the investment by local authorities at the present time.

Mr. E. Fletcher: The Financial Secretary conceded in his speech that the Government had made a mistake in trying to get this Bill through before the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I did nothing of the sort.

Mr. Fletcher: If that was not the purpose of the speech, what was the purpose of his quoting the announcement of the Lord Privy Seal last Thursday that in arranging business for this week it would have been much better to have got the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill through before the Committee stage of this Bill was taken?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman must not confuse good manners with admission of error. What I said, I hope with perfect clarity, was that it was done, not because we believed the order was wrong, but to meet the views of other sections of the House. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman should take what I had hoped was a well-intentioned and


courteous attitude as being an indication of admission of error. It was nothing of the sort.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: I cannot be the judge of the motives which inspired the Government's decision last week, but I thought was entitled to assume from what the Financial Secretary said that on this occasion good manners coincided with an admission of error of judgment. After all, there is no necessary inconsistency between the two. I would not in any circumstances want to challenge the good manners of the Parliamentary Secretary. Nor would I want to put him in the embarrassing position of having to choose between good manners and an admission of error.
I think we are entitled to feel that both reasons played some part in what I thought was the commendable desire of the Government to see the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill through before the Public Works Loan Bill. But if it was due merely to good manners, then the Financial Secretary stands condemned out of his own mouth of an error of judgment, because quite obviously, as the course of this debate has shown, it is fundamentally necessary that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill should be passed before we can complete this Bill.
The Financial Secretary did not attempt to answer the point made by my right hon. Friend, who pointed out that the whole purpose of this Amendment is to increase the provision of £1,050 million to £1,100 million, because at the present moment we do not know what the House will do about Section 1 of the 1945 Act.

Mr. Pannell: We have got a good idea.

Mr. Fletcher: But we are not entitled to forecast what the House will do. The Financial Secretary did not deal with that point. If we had got the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill through, we would then know for certain whether Section 1 of the 1945 Act was to be continued or not. On Second Reading the Financial Secretary went out of his way to make it plain that the reason he had inserted this figure of £1,050 million—

The Chairman: All this has been discussed before. We are now discussing a quite simple Amendment, which seeks to leave nut one sum and to insert another.

Mr. Fletcher: The reason we want to leave out £1,050 million and insert £1,100 million—which is the purpose of this Amendment, which I, for one, hope we shall carry to a Division in order to register our protest at the muddled position to which the Government have brought us—is that we do not yet know whether or not local authorities will have any other source of borrowing. The Financial Secretary has told us that he put this figure in the Bill because he assumed that local authorities would have some other source of borrowing. When we reach the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, we shall find an Amendment put down to re-insert Section 1 of the 1945 Act.
The Committee may decide to carry that or it may not, but the Financial Secretary, for all his competence, must not get into the habit of assuming that the Committee will do what the Government want. That would be treating the Committee with great contempt. The Committee is free to decide whether Section 1 of the 1945 Act should stay or whether it should not. If the Committee decides in a sense contrary to the wishes of the Government, it follows, as my right hon. Friend has said, that this figure of £1,050 million would be inadequate and would have to be increased either to £1,100 million or some other figure. That is the justification for this Amendment, which I sincerely hope we shall carry to a Division.
The Government have only themselves to blame, for having brought us into this muddled state of Parliamentary business. We have done our best to extricate them from it by suggesting that the order of business should be reversed, and that the debate on this Bill should be adjourned until we know what decision Parliament has come to on the Expirine Laws Continuance Bill. There has been no satisfactory answer to my right hon Friend's arguments, and I hope that we shall express our views of the Government's conduct in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Pannell: I hope that I shall be in order in discussing the conditions under which this money shall be borrowed during the next 12 months. It seems to me that the relevant consideration here, when we are fixing a global


sum, is the conditions and attractions that the Public Works Loan Board offer to local authorities. Subject to your guidance, Sir Charles, I intend to say a few words on the subject I touched on in the Second Reading debate.

The Chairman: I do not think that it would be in order. The Amendment is to leave out one sum and to insert another. The arguments must be for or against that Amendment.

Mr. Pannell: I am in a difficulty. I have argued before that the terms laid down by the Public Works Loan Board under the Treasury Minute sound flexible but are not made attractive to the local authorities.

The Chairman: That may be so, but it does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Pannell: I think that it arises in this way. We are putting in a higher sum than the sum mentioned in the Bill because of that degree of flexibility, and I am trying to help the Government by suggesting that it should put in a bit more flexibility, and that we should be able to jog along on the smaller figure. I should have thought that that was in order when we were discussing the two figures.
The present practice in lending this money is that, if the money is borrowed by a local authority for buying a fleet of lorries, it is borrowed for a period of seven or 10 years, which is the normal period for the maturity of the loan for that sort of thing. Borrowing for housing is usually for a period of 60 years. The point which the local authorities make is that if they are borrowing for housing, at the present time, when the market rate is high, they have to borrow on a basis of 60 years, and that they should be allowed to borrow for lesser periods from the Public Works Loan Board.
I protested about that in the Second Reading debate. There are a number of aspects to this matter, and the local authorities generally believe that they ought to be in a position to terminate a loan at any time within a reasonable period. Even if they do take out a 60 years' loan from the Public Works Loan Board for housing, when balances accrue to the local authorities they should be in a position to pay off that amount. It is

fantastic to suggest that this money should be unloaded on the market when interest rates are high and that it should have to be maintained by the local authority over all that period.
At a time when money was cheap, there was an attraction for the local authorities. At the present time, the rates of interest up to seven years are 3¾ per cent., from seven to 15 years 4 per cent., and over 15 years 4¼ per cent. I admit straight away that for long-term money the local authorities cannot better these figures. I think that it would be of considerable advantage to the rates if local authorities were allowed a break clause in the maturity of the loan, and were enabled to borrow on lesser terms which might result in a saving of public money.
We seem to look on the local authorities, not as partners in these financial operations, using public money, but as if they were a form of private enterprise. This is all public money which has to be raised by the taxpayers or ratepayers. One of the arguments for going to the Public Works Loan Board is that this money is raised by taxation, and in fact the local authority has to pay rent on it. I hope that I am in order in saying that the Treasury ought to face this problem in a more moderate way to the advantage of the local authorities.
We cannot consider this sort of thing in isolation. I am not going into the question of the considerations mentioned by some of my hon. Friends as to the motives behind this. The Financial Secretary, in winding up on the Second Reading debate, seemed to suggest that the House had suffered from two things, that some people had exaggerated too much, and that other people had minimised the effect of what was likely to happen. I referred in that debate to the contrary Press reports in the financial papers as to the reason behind this policy.
The Financial Secretary suggested, I think, that the large local authorities should float their own loans in their own local districts. I should have thought that it would be an advantage for us to consider whether these break clauses could be put in the contracts for all loans issued by the Public Works Loan Board. There is no question that the strongest charge which can be brought against the Treasury and the Public


Works Loan Board is that this is a rigid form of borrowing which does not match up to modern needs. I hope that we will have a statement from the Financial Secretary to the effect that he will meet the local authorities on this matter.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(DEBT NOT TO BE RECKONED AMONG ASSETS OF LOCAL LOANS FUND.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Jay: I should like to take the opportunity to ask the Financial Secretary one or two further questions about the loan on account of the housing at Kenfig Hill, which was touched upon in the Second Reading debate.
This is a remarkable story. I am asking now whether we may be given some more detailed explanation about this matter. These houses were built from 1921 to 1924. We learn from the observations on page 2 of the Bill that in 1928 about 70 houses were still vacant, and that it was not until the war occurred that it was possible for the houses to be sold. I do not propose to deal with the state of deprivation of property which prevailed in South Wales at that time. I should like, however, as this is such a very remarkable story, to ask why, even in those conditions, a hundred or so houses stood vacant for 10 years or more, and whether there is some further explanation.
Was it that the finance available for these houses was raised at such a high rate of interest that it was impossible for the houses to be let? Was it that some mistake was made in spending the money, or was it that the costs were too high, or that insufficient care was taken to ensure that the houses were put up at rents which could reasonably be paid? I think that we are entitled to know this before we write off such a large sum of money.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot add very much to this matter, apart from the very clear statement of the case which is written inside the cover of the Bill. The facts of the matter appear quite clearly. In the circumstances of the investigations that were made subsequently by the Board, which involved, as the right hon.

Gentleman will have observed, the Board taking over the enterprise, it became apparent to the Board that this amount, some £39,000 out of a total investment of £141,000, would not be recoverable.
I stress two things. First, the right hon. Gentleman had great fun over this on Second Reading. He sought, with his habitual agility, to attach to this story his own view of the history of the years between the wars. He only omitted from it the fact, which appears in the statement, that there was a reduction in the rents in 1928, and that even in the years 1929–31 which I assume he would think were not too bad years, the premises were not able to be let.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Jay: They were reduced in 1928

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Exactly, the rents were reduced in 1928 as is apparent from the account set out in the Bill, but notwithstanding that, the houses remained unlet in the subsequent years. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reflect on that.

Mr. Mitchison: I do not quite understand this argument. Looking at the description, the whole of the difficulty appears to have been caused by serious unemployment in the district beginning, I think, in 1924 or thereabouts. That is the reason for all this trouble. What is the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and learned Gentleman has most accurately stated half the case, but he will appreciate that the story, though it may have begun in 1924, did not result in any amelioration in the years that followed and particularly in the two years to which I have referred. But I merely say that because the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) had, I thought, some fun on Second Reading. No one would wish to deny him his fun, but perhaps the full picture is of greater value for the record than the very agreeable half-tint which he gave us.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As the hon. Gentleman is so anxious to get the record right, perhaps I should point out to him and the Committee that, although it is true that in 1928 when a Conservative Government were in power 70 houses were vacant and the rents had to be reduced, the description goes on to say that, as a result of


that, not all the houses remained empty, but that not all of them were let, so that some must have been let between 1929 and 1931.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But even at lower rents than had obtained up to 1928 it was not possible in 1929 to let some of the property. I do not propose to go further with that; I was only adding a little light and shade to the picture drawn by the right hon. Member for Battersea. North.
As regards the practical aspects of this matter, there is, as the Committee are aware, a procedure laid down under the statutes quoted for deeming that advances by the Board become for one reason or another irrecoverable in whole or in part. The Board makes the recommendation and it has, I understand, been the practice of successive Governments to take the view that this is a matter which the Board with all its experience is perfectly competent to do. Therefore, we are putting forward as a recommendation of the Board that this sum be written off the assets of the Board. That is Clause 3 which we are now discussing.
As the Committee will observe, when we come to the following Clause we also suggest at the next stage writing it off as an asset of the Exchequer. It is simply a matter of accountancy. The records of the Board will be tidier and more accurate if this loss is written off by this Clause, and equally by the following Clause the records of the Exchequer will also be more accurate.
I do not think, in view of the recommendations of the Board and the time which has been given in which to watch this matter, that the Committee can entertain any hope that whatever they do will get the money back. It is, therefore, purely a matter of accountancy, and I think that with our knowledge—which I am sure both right hon. Gentlemen opposite possess—of the efficient way in which the Board discharges its duty in this direction, it is right and proper to accept their request and to write off their liability. This is not a matter of very great importance; it is, as I have said, simply a matter of accurate and efficient accounting.

Mr. Houghton: One of the most engaging characteristics of the Financial Secretary is his satisfaction with himself. When he ought to show some sense of shame he becomes even more exuberant, and, if I may say so, just a little more conceited. Surely, here is an echo of the sordid past of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. Here, surely, is an occasion when right hon. and hon. Members opposite would wish the past to bury its dead, but here it comes gaping up again for people to see what life was like in South Wales in the years between the wars.
The Financial Secretary accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) of making fun of it during the Second Reading debate. There was no fun then, and there is certainly no fun to be got out of it now. But the hon. Gentleman is so anxious to fix the responsibility on anybody but himself and his friends that he makes play of the fact that the loan was advanced during the years 1921–24 which just takes us to the period of the first Labour Government. That being so, the hon. Gentleman thinks he can shuffle some of this responsibility, which was that of past Coalition and Conservative Governments, on to the first Labour Government.
In the course of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman said that even though the rents were reduced in 1928 it was impossible to let some of the property. The insinuation is that 1928 was so close to 1929, when the second Labour Government came into power, that some of the responsibility must be placed on that Administration. All this I find very contemptible. This is a very unhappy story and is something on which the young people of today can reflect. In 1928, out of 170 houses, 70 were vacant. That seems almost unbelievable in these days when there is not a house to let anywhere, not even in South Wales.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) drew attention to the fact that it was serious unemployment in the district that made it impossible to obtain these economic rents. There is no doubt that we are not going to get the money back and that we shall have to go through the formality of sweeping away this last remaining wreckage of those years. But I think that the Financial Secretary might at least have expressed some regret for


the unhappy social and industrial conditions under which these losses were incurred instead of making, as I thought he did, a little fun out of the matter himself and instead of trying in a most offensive way to fix the responsibility on the Labour Government who certainly had nothing to do with creating the difficulties out of which this unhappy episode arose.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I wish to add a word on this subject for the purposes of the record because, after all, I am partly responsible for the recommendation that these sums should be remitted. I do not think there is any doubt whatever that that is the right course to adopt, but I cannot agree with the Financial Secretary that this is a mere matter of accountancy. After all, we are writing off a sum of £39,940, and I think it right that we should draw whatever moral can properly be drawn from this unhappy story before Parliament exercises its sanction which is necessary to enable the Commissioners to write off this sum.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) spoke more truly than he knew when he asked whether the real reason for this trouble was the fact that the original loan was granted at an unduly high rate of interest. The Financial Secretary did not deal with that point, and I think that as it is such a large sum of money the Committee ought to be acquainted with the facts. The facts were set out in the Report of the Public Works Loan Board for the year 1927, which was long before I was appointed a Commissioner. It said:
Kenfig Homes, Limited, is a public utility society formed in June, 1920, for the purpose of erecting houses at Kenfig Hill, Penybont, Glamorgan, for occupation by miners employed at the Kenfig Collieries of Messrs. Baldwin's, Ltd.
As far as we know, the sum of £140,590 was lent, and the rate of interest, which is relevant on this issue and is, indeed, the item that is most relevant, was 6½ per cent.
I made some inquiries into the matter and I found that this loan was made by the Commissioners of that time to this public utility society formed by Messrs. Baldwin's, Limited, at the request and instigation of the Ministry of Health and the Board of Trade. Owing to the excessively high rate of interest charged, it

follows that very high rents had to be fixed for the 170 houses that were built by Kenfig Homes, Limited.
A few years later interest rates fell and the local authority, namely, the Penybont Rural District Council, thought they would set about erecting houses on sites belonging to them, and because they were able to borrow at a lower rate of interest they were able to build almost identical houses at a lower rent. The result was that these Penybont Rural District Council houses were built and the tenants of Kenfig evacuated the 170 houses built by Kenfig Homes, Limited, and went across the road to live in the houses built by the rural district council at much lower rents.
The result of that was that the Kenfig houses became empty and could not be let. Therefore, eventually the Public Works Loan Commissioners, in pursuance of their statutory duty and as subsequently approved by Parliament, appointed a receiver, who had to do his best to let the houses at lower rents, eventually selling them to repay as much as he could of the loan.
It is quite obvious from the recital of the relevant facts that no blame attaches to the Public Works Loan Commissioners at any stage of this sorry recital, but the moral is that loans ought not to be made at excessive rates of interest over long periods, whether for housing or other social purposes. If loans for housing purposes are lent at 6½ per cent. or even at lower rates of interest, this is the kind of difficulty that one gets into, and it is for those reasons, and faced with this unhappy story that we have tried previously this year and last year, whenever the occasion arose, to protest against this mistaken and evil policy of making local authorities pay an unduly high rate of interest for the loans they require for housing and other social purposes.
This is a very grim picture of what happens when there are excessive rates of interest charged either by local authorities or by utility companies for putting up houses. Once the loan has been borrowed at an inflated rate of interest, as we heard last week and as we shall hear at a later stage, the borrower has to repay it over 50 or 60 years. He cannot escape that liability, and this excessive rate of interest goes on all the time, even though interest rates subsequently fall.
That is precisely what we have been protesting about and this is what leads to trouble. Here was a glaring case. I do not blame the Penybont Rural District Council for putting up dwellings for the inhabitants of their area, who are nearly all colliery or ex-colliery workers or the widows of colliery workers, but the result of putting up those houses which could be let at lower rents was that the houses built out of the loan at 6½ per cent. fell empty. Now Parliament has to sanction the writing off of nearly £40,000.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(REMISSION OF BALANCE OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST OF CERTAIN LOCAL LOANS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I think the matters set out in the first and second Schedules, which we are now asked to consider under this Clause, present a most remarkable story, and I hope the Financial Secretary is going to give us some further explanation of what all this means. If I understand this story aright—and I am looking at page iii of the Financial Memorandum—a total of £4¾ million was advanced to farmers under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, and, since it expired in 1928, over a period of about five years. Out of that considerable amount there are outstanding amounts, if my figures are correct, amounting to nearly £1½ million.
I do not know what has happened or what check Parliament has had on this matter. I may be quite wrong and I may have overlooked some other Parliamentary control, but this appears to me to be a report which concerns the writing off of these loans which actually began in 1934 and continued steadily until at any rate after the war. Am I right in supposing that this is the first time that Parliament has ever had the opportunity of considering, not the mere accounting—these are a great deal more than accounting points—of the loans, but the fact that a very large proportion has had to be written off in this way?
I do not doubt for one moment the competence of the Commissioners in these matters, but it is literally impossible

now to get the money back. My hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) has been heard to talk about the farmers and feather beds, but in this particular instance it does not look to me as if the feather bed were provided until the farmer had fallen remarkably hard on the floor. One would want to know in what circumstances all these advances were made with such an immensely high proportion of them proving to be irrecoverable.
In the figures of this comparatively cold statement one sees most vividly the appalling difficulties through which British agriculture passed during the twenties. The fact that a public body of this sort, making these advances by way of agricultural credits to farmers, was compelled to write off out of this public money the very high proportion of over one-third of what was advanced simply because the money could not be recovered, throws a lurid light on the policy, or lack of policy, that was shown towards agriculture during all those years.
I know how much more has been done for farmers and for agriculture since the end of the war, and that should be compared with the state of affairs disclosed by these figures. I wonder why the farmers are not sometimes a bit more grateful than they appear to be. I leave it to the Financial Secretary to make what political jest he can out of that same odd conclusion. I want to know not merely the position of agriculture—that is selfevident—but whether it is really the case that, except by some special and careful hunting through large volumes of figures, the broad facts of the extent and the long duration of these transactions has never been reported to the House of Commons or been subject to public control in any form during all these years. The matter has lain from 1934 up till now, without the necessary steps being taken for writing off and to make the books look right—if I may take the Financial Secretary's metaphor.
If that is the case—and I am not talking about the merits of the matter between one Government and another, because Governments of various colours have been in office during this long period—the whole question of reporting these matters and of a much prompter dealing with them is a matter of constitutional and financial propriety and of giving the


House of Commons effective control. I know how voluminous the papers are about financial matters, and I am quite prepared to be told that if I had looked at a 300-page volume of estimates I might have found all this dealt with at the bottom of page 153, so to speak.
The broad point is that these outstanding debts amount to a disquietingly large volume and they have continued to be written off ever since 1934. The facts of the high proportion of debts written off and the long duration of the writing off process have never been brought to the attention of this House. The legislative process of tidying up the books has been delayed for so long that we now have to go back as far as 1934.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When I first had a look at the papers in this case, my reaction was similar to that of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I can in considerable degree reassure him. I understand that we are discussing Clause 4, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has found it necessary, in order to make his argument coherent, to refer to the case of Kenfig Homes, Limited. I suppose I must be allowed to do the same.
Clause 4 deals with the later stages of the writing off procedure. The earlier procedure in writing off the account by the Board must have been taken at some previous time, otherwise that first stage would not have delivered us now to the second stage. So far as Kenfig Homes are concerned, stage one is the writing off by the Board and stage two is the writing off by the Exchequer. The bulk of the items in the Schedule relate to stage two. I find it a little conspicuous that the right hon. and learned Gentlemen who might have cleared up this matter are not for the moment on the Front Bench opposite.

Mr. E. Fletcher: If the Financial Secretary will look at the fourth column of the Schedule, he will see references to the particular Acts in which the first stage was taken.

Mr. Mitchison: My point is that the first stage of the matter was begun in 1934. Indeed, it is so stated in the Table to which I was referring. Why has the second stage been so long delayed?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a difficult question to answer. The facts, according

to my inquiries, differ from case to case. The substance of the position is that the Exchequer are not inclined to write off assets until they are convinced that there is no chance of recovery. Between stage one, the writing off by the Board, and stage two, the writing off by the Exchequer, the gap may vary from case to case according to whether a faint glimmer of hope remains that the public funds may recover some portion of the assets owing.
As I said, my own reaction on seeing the papers in this matter was almost entirely that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Some of these matters appear to go back a considerable time, but they have not been neglected, as the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) was good enough to point out. The stage one position is recorded in the Schedule and the matters have not been neglected in the interim. It is merely a question in each particular case of whether it was reasonable to hope that it might be possible to salve something from the wreck.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman is interested in any particular individual case, and likes to proceed by way of a Parliamentary Question, I should no doubt be able to get the facts though it is not particularly convenient or perhaps appropriate to bring out the facts in individual cases, because it means disclosure of the affairs of some individual. Ex hypothesi they must be the affairs of individuals who have suffered from some misfortune.
On the general case, the hon. and learned Gentleman took the point that a large number of the advances under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, are irrecoverable. It depends, as Dr. Joad would put it, on what you mean by "large." The total figure not recovered is £132,000, while the total of the sums advanced was £4,766,119. While I am not saying that it is a satisfactory thing that money owing to the public is irrecoverable—no one who holds my office can ever take that view—there must be some proportion in this matter, and perhaps £132,000 out of £4¾ million, though not a satisfactory proportion is inaccurately described as "a high proportion."

Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I want to get this clear. If the hon. Gentleman looks at page iii, to which


I have already referred him, he will see that the facts appear to be that of a total of £4,700,000 odd, certain loans totalling £3,400,000 odd have been repaid without loss. I quite agree that on the figures it is obvious that there has not been a total loss, but am I not right in saying that on £1,200,000 there has been irrecoverable default, total or partial?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The position is this. I will put the total advances at £4,750,000 to save odd figures. The total amounts that we are seeking to write off are, in round figures, £132,000. Very nearly £3,500,000 has already been repaid. A certain amount, of course, is outstanding as some of these loans are long-term loans and are not yet due for repayment. The hon. and learned Member need not be too perturbed, although I share his concern when even one penny of public money is lost.
Once again, this is a matter of the final stages of accountancy. Each case has been considered from the angle I have suggested. It has been considered for quite a time, but once we are convinced that the money cannot be recovered, the realist, practical and tidy thing is to put the books right, and that is what the Clause and the Schedule seek to do.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The following new Clause stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. E. FLETCHER:

New Clause.—(REMOVAL OF DOUBTS AS TO DURATION OF LOANS.)

For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that during the period beginning with the passing of this Act and ending on the day on which a further Act granting money for the purpose of local loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners comes into operation, nothing in this Act or in any Act of Parliament shall be deemed to prevent the Public Works Loan Commissioners, at their discretion, from granting any loan to any local authority for any term of years shorter than that for which such local authority may have obtained the appropriate loan sanction.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The first new Clause does not appear to me to be necessary, but I will

hear the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) if he wishes to address any arguments to me.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I should like, Mr. Hopkin Morris, to explain why I think the Clause is necessary. In so far as you or anybody else may have any doubts about its necessity, it will be appreciated that it begins with the words
For the removal of doubts…
Therefore, in a sense it may be arguable whether it is necessary, but in so far as the matter with which the Clause attempts to deal has given rise to doubts in the past, it seemed to me to be necessary to put this matter beyond all doubt.
It arises out of something that took place on the Second Reading of the Bill. During that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) and myself pointed out the inconvenience and hardship which at present exist to local authorities in that, when they borrow money from the Public Works Loan Board, they have to borrow for the full term of years for which loan sanction has been granted by the Treasury.
When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury dealt with this point in replying to the debate a moment or two before 10 o'clock—it is only fair to say that the hon. Gentleman's time was rather abbreviated, otherwise he might have been able to deal with the matter at greater length—he said that he was interested in the arguments that had been put forward and that in some degree—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am listening with care, but the sole issue at the moment is that, in my view, the Clause is already provided for under the Act of 1875 and is not necessary. If the hon. Member has any argument to address to me on that point, I shall, of course, hear it.

Mr. Pannell: Further to this point, so far as we know, and we have had no other statement from the Financial Secretary—

The Deputy-Chairman: I have ruled that the Act of 1875 makes the Clause unnecessary. I am prepared to listen to the hon. Member with regard to that. No point of order arises.

Mr. Fletcher: Since it is necessary to go into the Act of 1875, which I had hoped


would be unnecessary, perhaps I may indicate the point with regard to that. I take it, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that the Section of the Act of 1875 which you have particularly in mind is Section 11. If there are any other Sections on which you would wish me to address you, I will do so, but, as far as I can see, Section 11 is the only relevant Section as to whether the Clause is necessary.
Section 11 of the Public Works Loans Act, 1875, says:
Every loan granted under this Act shall be made repayable by instalments (in the form of an annuity or otherwise) within a period from the date of the actual advance of such loan, not exceeding the period authorised by a special Act relating to such loan, or if no period be so authorised not exceeding twenty years.
Where a loan has been granted repayable within a period less than the full period allowed by the foregoing provisions of this section, the Loan Commissioners, if the repayment of the loan with interest is in their opinion sufficiently secured by such security as is required by this Act, and if they think fit, may extend the period for the repayment of such loan to a period not exceeding the said full period from the date of the advance of such loan.
Without further research that, I believe, is the only Section of the 1875 Act which deals with this matter.
That does not in any way deal with the point that was raised on Second Reading and with which the new Clause seeks to deal: namely, the current practice, following Treasury directions, of the Public Works Loan Board of not being able to grant any loan for a shorter period of years than that for which loan sanction has been given.
The doubt which, I submit, it is necessary to remove arises in this way. The Act of 1875 was passed over 75 years ago. Since then there has been a considerable change in the size, nature, scope and practice of loans by the Public Works Loan Board to local authorities. In particular, noticeable changes were introduced by the Act of 1945, which made the Board the sole source of borrowing, and the Control of Borrowing Order, which flowed from the financial regulations of the late war.
The position is now different in this sense. The Act of 1875 was passed to

deal with a set of circumstances very different from those which existed at the later date. Since then, we have had subsequent Acts dealing with local authority borrowing. Today, the position is that under the 1945 Act the Commissioners are much more circumscribed by Treasury direction than was contemplated when the 1875 Act was passed.
On any reading of the 1875 Act, of the Act of 1925 or of the Control of Borrowing Regulations, it is today quite impossible to know to what extent the old discretion of the Commissioners still obtains or whether that discretion was—I was going to say removed, which, I think, is the right word to use—at any rate, very greatly curtailed, by the legislation that has been passed since. That is the doubt which exists and there is no question that it is a doubt which is very widespread.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows perfectly well that that is a matter which has been the subject of discussion between the local authority associations and the Treasury and it is very important that this doubt should be removed once and for all. I think that it is the duty of this Committee to deal with it. Having, as I hope, made a prima facie case, I hope that I may continue to say a few words in support of the Clause.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have listened very carefully to the argument of the hon. Gentleman, but it does not alter my view that the powers in this new Clause are already covered by Section 11 of the Act of 1875. Whatever the intentions of the hon. Member, they are not achieved by this new Clause and therefore I cannot select this new Clause.

Mr. Fletcher: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: I have listened with great care to the hon. Member's argument and given full consideration to, it, but it does not affect my mind and does not alter it. The next new Clause—"Procedure for increasing interest rates"—is out of order.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment: to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.14 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of this Bill is to maintain at £126½ million the maximum permitted for issues from the Civil Contingencies Fund. If no action is taken by this House, under existing legislation the Fund will fall to a maximum of £1½ million after 31st December next. I can state the history of the matter quite briefly.
Before the war, the Fund stood at a level of £1½ million and remained at that figure until the end of the war. As the war was mainly financed—as hon. Members opposite will recall—by Votes of Credit and the normal Supply procedure did not generally operate, the Fund was very little needed. But, after the war, by the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1946, as the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) will no doubt recall, the late Government raised the level to £250 million. This the late Administration brought down in 1950 to a total of £126½ million—that is to say, as I understand it, the original basic £1½ million plus £125 million. This accounts for the rather odd figure, which we also put forward, of £126½ million.
The House will be familiar with the purposes for which the Fund is used. It is used only for temporary financing, whatever may be the purpose of the advance. The advances are normally repaid, almost entirely from Votes, for the main part during the same financial year, although a certain percentage of the Fund may relate to expenditure borne on the Consolidated Fund. In practice, these advances are for one of three main purposes. The first is to meet a sudden and unexpected emergency. A very good recent example was the disaster which befell Lynmouth during the summer. The House will recall that the Government were able to make an immediate grant for relief purposes and that it was financed from the Fund.
Generally, perhaps, the items in this category do not amount to very large

sums. I hope they will continue not to be large amounts. The big items generally result from the operations of the great trading Departments, particularly the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Materials. These Departments have a trade turnover of hundreds of millions of pounds. They do not, of course, spend their money evenly throughout the year and, what is perhaps more pertinent, their receipts do not come in evenly either. Stocks and prices, commercial considerations and so on, may affect temporarily the balance of their expenditure and receipts. Whatever the future may hold, the two Departments I have mentioned are continuing large-scale trading operations, and one or two other Departments conduct trading operations on a smaller scale. It is essential to be able to finance temporary deficits in which they may be involved in their trading operations.
The third general category for which it is necessary to use the Fund is the sort of case of which an example was given by the Chancellor during the debate on the Address when he indicated that there would be some overspending of the Ministry of Supply Vote. I do not think the House will want me to go into the details of that. The House will recall that, among other things, there was an acceleration of textile orders announced last summer in connection with the difficulties which the textile industry was undergoing, and that, of course, involved some additional expenditure.
Having, I hope, suggested to the House the need for a Civil Contingencies Fund of an appreciable size, I come now to the inevitable question as to whether the figure we present in this Bill is the right one. It is a figure which has stood for one year under the present Administration and also for one year under its predecessor. It is, therefore, quite impartial as between political parties. Obviously, in fixing the figure, we must find a reasonable balance between two conflicting considerations. On the one hand, the Fund clearly should not be so large as to encourage snap estimating or careless extravagance and, on the other hand, it should be large enough to ensure that the necessary operations of the Government are not crippled by purely temporary shortages of cash.
It may help the House in coming to a decision as to the correctness of the figure


if I mention that in 1950–51 the peak demand on the Fund at one time was £108 million and in 1951–52 it was £92 million. On the face of things, it would not be wise to assume—bearing in mind the particular example to which I referred from my right hon. Friend's speech—that one could fix a lower figure. That is reinforced by the fact that, as will soon be disclosed in the accounts of the Civil Contingencies Fund for 1951–52, shortly to be laid before the House, the total payments out of the Fund in 1951–52 were £162 million. That is on Votes alone. There were, of course, also some repayments during the year from Supplementary Estimates.
On the other hand, it does not seem necessary, on these figures, to raise the limit, assuming, as I do and as I am sure all hon. Members will do, that we ought to keep it as low as we can. I would, therefore, recommend to the House that we keep the figure for this year at £126½ million, that is to say the present figure.
There is one other provision of the Bill to which I ought perhaps briefly to invite the attention of the House. We are continuing the present limit for one year only compared with the two years' extension provided in the Act of 1950 and the four years' extension in the 1946 Act. We also provide, as hon. Members may have observed, that if in the future it is desired to continue the figure at this same level of £126½ million, this can be done in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That would only be possible if the figure for the future were to be the same; any increase or decrease would involve a separate Bill of the character of the present one. That seems to be a practical procedure which secures that this matter will be within the control of this House within a year.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think that those Members of the House who were present on the last occasion when a Bill of this kind was debated will have noticed the astonishing change of attitude shown by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury compared with the attitude adopted by the Conservative Party in 1950.
This Bill has been on the Order Paper for at least a week. It was originally put down for last Wednesday, together

with the Public Works Loan Bill and the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I am not sure, but I think there was also some other business down on the same day. We spent the whole of that day, and very properly so, in considering the Public Works Loan Bill. So far as I could see, there was no attempt on the part of any of my hon. Friends on this side of the House to hold up the proceedings; in fact, so far as speakers in the debate were concerned, it was turn and turn about.
I want, therefore, on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, to register straightaway, a most emphatic protest that the Government should think they could get this Bill, together with the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and the Public Works Loan Bill, as well as other business, with the Rule unsuspended, in one Sitting. I suppose the excuse which the Government will put forward is that it is essential that these Bills should go through all their stages in the next few weeks. I have no doubt that that is quite true, but I wish to ask the Financial Secretary, who did not deal with this point at all, why they have waited until November to bring this Bill before the House.
We all know that, together with other Measures, it must be on the Statute Book before the end of the year. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) introduced the Civil Contingencies Fund Bill in 1950, the then Labour Government showed a proper regard for the House in introducing it in July. It will be within the recollection of Members on both sides that during the earlier part of this year the business which the Government brought before us had very little merit, and it would have been possible to have brought in this Bill before we rose for the summer instead of the Government bringing in a Bill to help the brewers.
I have therefore no excuse to offer for the fact that we intend to keep the House a little time tonight examining this Measure, which, after all, deals with a considerable sum. What is the Civil Contingencies Fund? I have heard it variously described in this House over the years. It is sometimes called a petty cash account, sometimes a kitty, sometimes an emergency fund. I think the last time we debated the matter it was referred to by one hon. Gentleman now


on the Government side of the House as a loose reserve into which unscrupulous Governments could dip at any time. It has also been described occasionally in this House as a cloak for faulty estimating.
Actually, as its Title indicates, it is to be used to make temporary payments which could not reasonably have been foreseen when the Estimates were submitted. As I think the Financial Secretary told us, it has now been in existence for about 90 years. I wish to say on behalf of my hon. Friends that we believe that a fund of this kind is absolutely essential. There must be an account of this nature in any business, however small that business may be, and when we remember what a tight control the House exercises in financial matters, and how our financial procedure governing the issue of money from the Consolidated Fund is laid down, it is essential, in our view, that we should have a fund of this kind which can be used in an emergency.
We on this side of the House do not object, and never have objected, to the existence of this Fund. We support it wholeheartedly, we realise the need for it, and we want to see it continued in being. That does not mean that we cannot and do not mean to criticise the proposals of the Government in the Bill before us this evening. Having agreed, as we do, that a fund of this kind is essential, the next point to consider—I think the Financial Secretary mentioned this—is what upper limit should be set to the drawings by the Treasury on the Consolidated Fund for this purpose.
This Fund began, as I think most of us are now aware, in 1862, when a sum of £120,000 was advanced. Conditions then were very different from what they are now. Even by the beginning of the First World War, the amount had not changed very much—it had, I think, risen to only £300,000 in 1913. After that war it was increased temporarily, in 1919, to £120 million, and a couple of years later decreased to the £1½ million at which it stood until 1946, when in the Miscellaneous (Financial Provisions) Act of that year the Labour Government of that time increased it to £251½ million. In 1950, my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North reduced it to £126½ million, the figure at which it now stands.
Is that limit the right one? My right hon. Friend then put in as the date during which the Act should continue two years ahead of the year in which he was moving the Bill. It will be quite obvious from this that the Government of that time felt that £251½ million was the right figure then but desired that the House should look again in due course to see if it was or was not the correct figure at which the Fund should continue to stand. We must remember that there is a great difference between the old days, when a very small sum was obviously adequate and when the items for which it was needed were normally not large, and now.
The ambit of the Fund in these modern times has been greatly extended, and it can now be used, and very properly so used, to finance the very large trading Departments of the Government. The Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Supply both need cash from time to time, sometimes quite considerable sums in cash balances, and I, for one, am not at all convinced that £126½ million is actually too large as a reserve for these undertakings.
The money advanced in this way is not squandered, but is very fruitfully and usefully employed. It helps the Government in their bulk buying, which, in turn, helps to keep down the cost of living, and to view this Fund, as some hon. Members on the other side of the House have done in the past, as a sort of loose reserve to cover up the defalcations of the Government, is, quite wrong.
We have to realise that £1½ million, which I gather is what the Government presently hope to reduce the figure to, may not be enough. It seems to me, from what the Financial Secretary said, that the Government may be intending to wind up some of the trading accounts which at present exist. It may well be that, in their view, the Ministry of Food, for example, should presently go out of existence. But, if it is to be kept going, and if the bulk buying of meat and other things is to be continued, then, quite obviously, to return to an amount of £1½ million as the upper limit of this Fund will not provide anything like enough.
In 1950, the House had a very lively debate on this Bill. I do not think the Financial Secretary himself took part on that occasion, which I think is a great


pity, because he would have enlivened the proceedings, and it would have been very useful for us tonight to have quoted—I am quite sure against him, because he has obviously altered his views since then—some of the observations which he might then have made.
To look up HANSARD of the 10th July, 1950, is an amusing experience. Quite a number of his hon. Friends let themselves go on that occasion. They moved to reduce the £126½ million to a mere £50 million, and they put forward—from their point of view—some very cogent reasons why the sum of £50 million should be inserted in the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), himself a previous holder of the office which the hon. Gentleman opposite now holds, really did let himself go on that occasion, as well as the hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West said:
We believe that procedure ought to stop, and the sooner it stops the better.
By that, the right hon. Gentleman meant keeping the Civil Contingencies Fund at what they considered too high a level. He went on:
I suggest that unless we put our foot down and set a limit to this Fund, a very reasonable limit which should soon be reduced—the £50 million could soon be reduced to a much lower figure—we shall weaken Parliamentary control over finance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 10th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 1079.]
Nothing, of course, could be more absurd than a suggestion of that kind—that this Fund, used as it is for essential purposes connected with the trading Departments of the Government, would weaken Parliamentary control over finance. For that reason, I was very glad to hear the Financial Secretary say tonight that he thought that the £126½ million in the Bill is a very reasonable figure; if I understood him rightly, he also thinks that this sum should be retained.
From all we hear, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's budgeting last April has not come up to expectations, and it has been asserted, with what truth I do not know, that the revenue likely to accrue will not come up to what was hoped. If that is so, does it mean that the Government may have to draw on this Fund in order to cover up some of the faulty estimates which were made earlier in the

year? Because, if they do that, they will be using it for a purpose for which it was never intended, and one to which we should very rightly object.
I should also like to have from the Financial Secretary, if he can give it to us, an assurance that the way the Bill is worded this time does not mean that the Government contemplate letting it lapse in 1953. If they did this the Fund would, of course, still continue, because, in actual fact, the original £1½ million was not voted under a Civil Contingencies Fund Act at all. It appears in an earlier Finance Act—I think in Section 52 of the Finance Act of 1921. This being so, at the end of 1953, the Government, if still in office—and we all devoutedly hope they will not be—could let the present Act lapse, and we should then be back to £1½ million as the sum total available to this Fund.
I repeat that, in the view of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, such a sum is not enough in modern conditions, remembering the extension of this Fund to many other uses than the purely temporary and relatively small items like, for example, erecting a statue to some statesman, as it has been used in the past, or to make an advance when some tragic disaster occurs, such as we had this summer at Lynmouth, and so on.
This Fund, until some other Bill is introduced to provide the same facilities in a more permanent form, performs a very useful function in helping the Government in its bulk buying and with other trading activities, and we on this side would think it a disaster if that money, which is so useful and now available, should come to an end in the fashion I have indicated by the lapse of this Act at the end of next year.
I ask the hon. Gentleman, before the evening is out, or at some convenient time, to give us the assurances for which I have asked, which we on this side think are reasonable.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I do not intend to detain the House more than a few minutes, but I wish to express some uneasiness about the great change which I have seen since I became an hon. Member of this House, and in expressing that uneasiness I shall not use the extravagant language to which we were obliged to listen a few years ago


when those who now occupy the Government benches sat on this side of the House. At the same time, I think Parliament needs to be concerned about the change that has been brought about.
Before the war the Government had to account for every penny spent. One of the most important functions of this House was the Parliamentary control of finance. The House had to keep an eye on expenditure and hon. Members had to reflect the grievances of the people whom they represented. One of the reasons why the people of Britain regained their confidence in the ability of democratic institutions to deal with the problems before the country and to deliver the goods was that after the war we resumed the pre-war policy upon which this House had functioned.
It appears that this House is inclined to pass this Bill merely with a wave of the hand, even though it deals with the sum of £126,500,000. We ought to be concerned about what is taking place. Throughout the country people are being subjected to a general tightening up. Demands are being made for economies wherever possible, yet at the same time we are inclined to allow a Bill of this character to go by with hardly anything being said.
I admit that I am handicapped in making these observations because, unfortunately, I was not present—and to that extent I am in the wrong—when the Financial Secretary moved the Second Reading of the Bill. However, I think that we ought to be given a detailed account showing how it is intended to use this amount of money. In future whoever occupies the position of Financial Secretary ought to consider whether a White Paper should not be issued before, or simultaneously with, the publication of the Bill, so that hon. Members can continue their function of Parliamentary control over finance.
The country is in a serious economic position. We are calling upon those in industry to make a supreme effort. They are constantly taking part in research and development with a view to increasing production. They are constantly reducing the costs of production. Unless we in this House follow their example and watch every penny of expenditure, there will not be the same confidence as there

would be if we ask for an account of all expenditure so that when we voted any amount we would have a detailed knowledge of how it was intended to be used.
I thought that these brief observations should be made, and I hope that between now and next year consideration will be given to what I have said.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: By leave of the House, I should like to reply to the questions which were asked. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) feels that he is being inconvenienced by the Bill being taken at this stage. I would remind him that this is an extension only for one year. I should certainly regret it if he had been inconvenienced in any way in this discussion.
I was glad when he said that we must have a Fund of this nature. I cannot, of course, give him any assurance about future legislation. He is perfectly right in saying that this proposed Bill will last until the end of 1953 and that if any further legislative action is not taken, the Fund will return to the basic £1,500,000. I cannot anticipate what steps it may be necessary for my right hon. Friend then to recommend to Parliament. It is perhaps satisfactory that that means that the whole position of the future of this Fund will be within the control of the House at that time.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The point I was trying to make is that we shall not have been able to discuss this question on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, because it will not even have been in it. This is not a Bill which has ever been within that Measure. If it does come to an end at the end of 1953, it appears to me that there is nothing that the House can do about it. That will be a pity.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The House would have its own resources for dealing with that matter, but I think that I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, without going beyond this, that obviously, while the practical needs which he recognises remain, any Government must make arrangements to deal with them. I do not think that he need worry very much on that score.
I agree wholeheartedly with much of what was said by the hon. Member for


Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). I fully share his view that we should be as strict in our accounting as we can and as diligent as we can in securing proper Parliamentary control of finance. In recommending this Measure to the House, I fully share the hon. Gentleman's sentiments on that point. When we are finding it necessary to observe strict financial standards generally, it is certainly right that the Government should take their part.
Had the hon. Gentleman been in the House when I moved the Motion, he would have heard me give not only the main purposes for which the Fund is necessary but, equally, an indication of my view that we were keeping the Fund, for the very reasons he has given, at as low a level as is consistent with the practical needs of the situation.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make temporary provision as to the maximum amount of the capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund, it is expedient to authorise such issues out of the Consolidated Fund, the raising of such moneys under the National Loans Act, 1939, and such payments into the Exchequer as result from extending by one year the period limited by paragraph (1) of section one of the Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1950, for the operation of section three of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1946.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — DOCTORS (PRE-REGISTERED SERVICE)

7.49 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That the Draft Medical Act, 1950 (Period of Employment as House Officers) Regulations Approval Order of Council, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th July, 1952, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
A period of compulsory hospital service for newly-qualified doctors, called at the time the intern period, was one of the major features of the Medical Act, 1950. In particular, the General Medical Council were empowered to prescribe, subject to the Privy Council and to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses, what that period should be.
I think that it is fair to say that the Act itself, when it went through the House, was non-controversial. I do not think that this is the time, nor indeed do I think that there is a need, to stress the arguments for pre-registration as such. I think the House will be agreed, as it certainly was two years ago. But perhaps I might indicate in one sentence on this very narrow Order that the purpose, of course, is to improve the value of medical training and thereby the standard of medical services.
This draft Order for which I am asking approval is made under the Act by the General Medical Council and lays down that the period of pre-registered service, as it is now called, shall be 12 months. It is planned that during that 12 months, the doctor, having passed the qualifying examinations and being provisionally registered, will be required to perform satisfactory service before becoming fully registered.
The only other matters which I should add on this question of the 12-month period are to point out that the Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Schools, commonly called the Good-enough Committee, did in fact recommend this very period which I am asking the House to approve. Indeed, the Medical Act, 1950, when first introduced, included the provision that there should be a 12-month period. A subsequent Amendment deleted that and left the period to be fixed by the General Medical Council, subject to the safeguards


of the Privy Council and Parliament which I have indicated. I think it fair to say that the Amendment was not because there was any difference of opinion about what the time should be, but just so that it should be possible for there to be a variation in the case of any national emergency, or unforeseen circumstance which might arise.
I should also inform the House that, so far as we know, we have had no official objections to the period being 12 months. The General Medical Council, which has the primary responsibility in this matter, has on it representatives of every licensing body which confers medical qualifications. It has representatives from the medical profession, and it has two Members of this House of Commons. All the appropriate official organisations have been consulted and, as I say, we have had no objections to this period of 12 months.
I might add that the appointed day under the Order in Council—which is not strictly debatable, and is certainly not before the House at the moment—is 1st January, 1953. While that Order is, of course, not the subject of this debate, perhaps I might be allowed to add that that date was also decided in agreement between the General Medical Council, and after similar consultation with all the organisations concerned. It seems to me clear that the period of 12 months is the right one, and the object that lies behind it is also right, and I commend this Order to the House.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving us some short introductory remarks about the Order we are being asked to approve. He is right in saying that there is no sort of division of opinion about the desirability of the main objects, but it is fortunate that we should come to it at such a relatively early hour, because there are one or two quite important issues arising out of it which it is essential that the House should consider.
Indeed, I am fortified in that view by the fact that when the Bill upon which this Order is based was going through the House it was the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) who at that time urged that it

should be possible for the House to consider some of the problems lying behind this Order in some detail when it was introduced. It was then pointed out, quite appropriately, that it would not be right at that stage to go into any very great detail about the form in which the Bill was passed at that time. But there was a general feeling that clearly the House would want to consider some of the factors giving rise to the decision as to the date and period of operation when this Order came before the House.

Mr. Macleod: I think the hon. Gentleman ought to complete the story. It is true that I and my right hon. and gallant Friend urged that this debate in which we are engaged tonight should go wider. But the hon. Gentleman who was the Parliamentary Secretary at that time, and his Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), did not see eye to eye with us; and it seems to me difficult for the hon. Member to argue now that we should go back to a suggestion made and rejected two years ago.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is it not strange? Here am I trying to be as friendly and conciliatory as possible, and we have an attempt made by the right hon. Gentleman to raise all sorts of political hares.
But, quite seriously, the proposal put forward at that time did seem to suggest a very detailed consideration indeed at this stage, and I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, who was then Minister of Health, quite rightly resisted that suggestion. But that did not at all rule out the possibility of a proper discussion of matters lying behind this Order, and the choice of the date and the period; and it is on that matter that I wish to say a few words. I am sure some of my hon. Friends will also wish to say something.
This Order does herald a very important new step. Although it is perfectly true that the intern-ship, or the pre-registered service period, has been in operation in other countries, it is new in this country; and it would be quite wrong if it were to be introduced without some further consideration by the House of the importance of it and the preparations which have been made for it, because it is upon that no doubt that the date turns. We are asked to say whether we are


satisfied, first, that a year is the proper period and, second, whether it should, or could, properly start on 1st January of next year.
In making this decision the House should remember, as indeed the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that the recommendation for this period of one year's further training—if one cares to call it that—was based on the recommendation of the Goodenough Committee. But they made it to some extent conditional on other matters raised when the Bill was going through the House and which are very pertinent to our consideration of the time and date of operation today.
For example, they were concerned that when this Measure came into operation it should be possible to ensure that a full use of this period of one year could be made by those responsible for the carrying out of the training and those who will, if the House likes, have imposed upon them—because that is no doubt what some students may feel—this extra year before they are able to take part in active practice.
One point which the Goodenough Committee made at that time, and referred to by several of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends when the matter was earlier discussed, was that at the same time as this proposal for the intern year was introduced it should be possible to have another look at the period of actual medical training, so that we should not be imposing too severe an extra strain upon the student. They made a recommendation that the period of training should be no more than four-and-a-half years.
It is proper for us to ask the Minister, now that some years have passed since the passage of the 1950 Act upon which this scheme is based, whether any progress has been made in having another look at the period of time for qualification, because, as we all recognise, it is a desperately long period. It is rather a serious matter which troubles many of those responsible for the operation of this proposal. It is a serious matter that more and more time is added to the period of student-ship and training, so that the student or the fully fledged doctor grows older and older before he is able to take part in active practice. That is an important point at which we should look again, and I should be glad to hear whether

in fact there has been any reconsideration of the period of qualification and whether any experimental steps or any action at all has been taken to review some of the items in the curricula in order to try to get the period down to the Goodenough Committee's recommendation—four-anda-half years.
Another point which we must consider is whether the country as a whole is ready for the operation of this proposal. On balance, I think the Minister is right—or rather, perhaps, I should say the General Medical Council is right—to say that we cannot start the operation of this scheme at different times in different parts of the country. It was suggested by some that it might well be necessary to do that; it was suggested that in some parts of the country they would be ready to introduce the scheme, while in other parts of the country they would not. I well remember my right hon. Friend at that time stating that he could not see how we could operate the scheme piece-meal in that way and that it had to come into force at the same time throughout the country. I am glad, on the whole, that that view has been accepted, although there is a power to introduce different times for different parts of the country.
To my mind, the Minister is right in taking that decision, but it makes it all the more important that we should decide whether or not we are ready to introduce the scheme. While it is true that the main responsibility for the decision falls upon the General Medical Council, I do not think it would be right for the House to let the matter go without making some inquiry into the provisions which have been made to ensure that the best possible use is made of this period.
For example, is the Minister satisfied that suitable posts are available for all those who will be coming out of their training and who will need to have posts found for them for this period? Let us remember that we hoped that those posts would not merely be a continuance of the old house officer appointments. It was felt that something rather more than that was needed and that it should be possible for the interns, to use that relatively simple word, to move around in the hospital and get a valuable extra training in addition to that which he has had during the six years he has already been in the hospital. We need to know whether the Minister is satisfied on that point.
Clearly the position must vary from one part of the country to another. I know that in the part of the country to which I belong the position is relatively simple, because the number of those coming out of training, who will need posts found for them, is relatively small. I do not think there will be any great difficulty in finding appointments for them. But I understand that the position in other parts of the country is by no means as simple, and we need some assurance on the point, all the more because we understand—and here I should like the Minister's views—that discussions are going on at the present time both with the teaching hospitals and the regional hospital boards about the possible freezing of staff in the hospitals. It would be most unfortunate if, just at the time that this new proposal was being set on foot, there should be this freezing of staff. That would be a most retrograde and unfortunate step, because it might mean that the intern might not get that standard of training and that value out of the year which otherwise he ought to get.
We must say, too, that we are concerned about what is to be the form of this period of one year's internship. In what way is it to be divided? Are we satisfied that it will be run satisfactorily throughout the country? Are there to be large variations in practice from one part of the country to another? These are very important matters. I think we all agree that it is vital that the future doctor should get as much experience and contact as possible with the sort of problems which he is likely to face in general practice, and that this period of a further year should not be merely repetition of what he has been doing throughout the previous five or six years. He should have some new experience which has not been available to him before. For that reason, amongst others, it is important that the General Medical Council shall have carefully thought out, as I am sure they have, the content of the courses during this year.
The final point I want to mention is one which I know is in the minds of several of my hon. Friends. It is the question of a proper safeguard for the medical students themselves. This is a

matter which was very much to the fore when we discussed the Bill, and I think it is still a very important point to raise this evening, because there may still be some misgivings amongst some of those who are now obliged to take this intern year and who were in the middle of their training at the time the Bill was passed.
We agreed in the House at the time that we could not wait for the long periods which would be necessary before all those who were undergoing training had been able to complete their training without an intern period. We could not wait as long as that before instituting the scheme. But that means that all the more must we be satisfied that there are proper safeguards, particularly for those who are married and have very heavy responsibilities to meet, and who may have planned their lives originally on an understanding that they would be able to go out into general practice a year earlier than in fact will be the case.
My understanding is that the allowances which were agreed were at the rate of £350 a year for the first six months of the intern year and £400 a year for the next six months of the intern year. Has there been any change in those figures? The cost of living has risen, of course. I should like to know whether the allowances have been reconsidered. I understand that there is still anxiety about this point—an anxiety which has not been wholly allayed by other announcements which have been made in the past. It is very important that there should be no anxiety which we can overcome in a proper manner.
I do not think any of the points which I have raised are in any way unreasonable or unnecessary. I am sure that everyone will agree that in parting from this proposal with the greatest good will towards it, and every hope of its success, we are anxious that it should operate in the most satisfactory conditions possible. It is our right, therefore, to know all we can about the provisions which have been made to ensure its smooth operation, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity, with the leave of the House—which I am sure he will be given—to let us know something more about the detailed working proposals. I am sure, too, that my hon. Friends have many questions which they wish to put.

8.10 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) has covered the theme very well in putting points to the Minister. The Minister himself left us in no doubt that he is under the impression that in the discussion which took place in July, 1950, on the Committee stage of the Medical Act, when in all parts of the House we asked for assurances and put questions to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), the Minister at that time was not willing that there should be any further discussion now. With respect, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Macleod: Surely, with great respect, it is quite immaterial whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale was willing or not. The right hon. Gentleman is not in the Chair in the House tonight and no undertaking given two years ago is relevant. Surely the point is that we are discussing at the moment, as I understand it, the issue and only the issue of whether the period should be 12 months. There is nothing else before the House.

Dr. Stross: If that really were the case, it would be an interesting example of how, when times change and responsibilities differ, opinions differ. But I am sure the Minister will agree with this other point—that he, like other hon. Members, pressed that when we came to this draft Order we should be careful, and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said, in effect, at the time, "I must not have these things for which you ask in the Order, but there must be discussion at the time."
Most of the points have been put thoroughly by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, but there are questions which I should like to put essentially on behalf of the students who are involved. We accept that the line should be drawn at some time. We discussed in 1950 a year or so, but it is two and a half years now. It has been a longer time than any of us contemplated would elapse before the draft Order was brought forward. Perhaps that is as well because it has given us fuller notice than we thought was possible in July, 1950.
There may be some students who feel a grievance. Certainly some of the married ones may do so, especially if they have family ties and children. There are also women students who are married and who feel that a year of internship, separated from their family, may create a special difficulty. I know that there are not many cases but it is as well for the sake of the few that do exist to state that they feel this special grievance.
I hope that at some time in the future the Minister will consider whether it will be possible for the authorities in charge to give these students special consideration, or to arrange that positions should be found for them as near as possible to their homes or the schools at which they practise. Married women should not have to go 100 miles or more from home to do a year's internship. That is a small but important point.
The year itself is ideal. All of us want it. I should like to reinforce the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East in saying that this extra year must prove of benefit not only to the students but to the public. During this year it is not new theory that the student wishes to learn, because after the five and a half years, or in some cases six or seven years, during which the student qualifies, he knows as much about theory as he ever will know for the rest of his life. In fact he spends the rest of his life slowly, and perhaps unfortunately, forgetting a great deal of his theoretical training.
During this year the student wants further practical education with responsibility. His responsibility will be limited to a certain extent, but only because he will have protection and guidance from those who are more skilful in the art of medicine than he is. And it is essential that the promise we had two years ago should be carried out. It is that he should not be limited to surgery for six months and medicine for six months but should go as widely round the departments as possible. The medical student does not know very much about treatment as such. There is no time to teach him much about therapeutics but a year's internship will enable him to be taught.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East quoted the remuneration to be paid to the student as £350 for the first six months and £400


for the second six months. On this question I want to put a point of some substance to the Minister. A medical student with a family may be receiving over £500 a year in grants at the present time. I am sure that the Minister would agree that it is a little anomalous if he drops in the first six months to £350, with exactly the same responsibility, and his total remuneration for the second six months is only £400. The Minister is bound to receive representations either directly or indirectly, and although the number will not be very great I ask him to remember that grievances are not made smaller because the number who suffer are few.
The future of medical services in this country in the long run depends not so much upon buildings as upon the quality of those who serve. In wholeheartedly agreeing, as we do, to this Order, we are asking students that, even though some of them may feel they have a grievance and that it is an inconvenience at the moment, they should realise that the type of service for which we ask from them is the very best they can possible give. I am sure that any of them who feel any umbrage or sense of discomfort will realise throughout the rest of their lives that what is done today on their behalf, commencing on 1st January, 1953, is not only for the benefit of the public but for their benefit, too.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: I hope that the Minister will appreciate that on both sides of the House we welcome this Order and will be glad to see it brought into operation. For that reason, I was rather sorry that he adopted the tone which he did when he seemed to be trying to cut down discussion on very important matters that arise from the fact that the Order is now being approved. He seemed to say that the only thing that can be discussed is whether the period should be 12 months and that there is nothing else before the House.
With respect, however, I submit that the Order includes the appointed date, that is, 1st January, 1953. It is on that aspect of the Order that I think most of the queries arise. It would be a pity if this opportunity went by without these points being raised for the benefit of the

information we can obtain from the Minister, and also for the benefit that medical students and others who are interested and who will be very directly affected may receive as a result of questions and answers tonight.
The Minister started by saying that fortunately he had had no direct objections to this proposal. If he has not had any direct objections, I can tell him that certain objections were made, because the University of Sheffield, with which I have the honour to be associated as a member of the Board of Governors, made certain objections to the operative date. I believe that other objections were also made on the ground that the posts could not be made available in time.

Mr. Macleod: I do not want to be misunderstood. I was referring to objections to the period of 12 months. It is quite true that the University of Sheffield and perhaps two or three teaching hospitals in London had different views about January, 1953, but there has been no objection to the period of 12 months.

Mr. Hynd: I misunderstood the Minister, and I apologise. It is quite clear that there have been no objections to the period. There have been queries put by my hon. Friend about what is to be done during that period. I do not think much objection will be raised about that. I understand that six months of the period is to be served medically and six months surgically, or, alternative to either, on midwifery. That would provide a very effective and useful training for any student taking up any of these house officers' posts.
There was some misapprehension about whether this could be brought into effect by 1st January, and whether the lists of available posts could be made public in time for them to have effect. I understand that lists have been made available and were published in September, and that they do show, so far as I can find out, that at least at the beginning there will be more than sufficient posts available for all the students likely to go through the schools in the course of next year. That is very satisfactory for those who support the proposition.
It is also extremely satisfactory to note that most of the Commonwealth countries have already brought in, or are bringing in, similar legislation. I do not know


what the position is about India, which is extremely important. Perhaps the Minister could give us some information about that, because the degree of reciprocity between Commonwealth countries is very important.
There are one or two things about which I should be happy to get some assurance from the Minister. First, there is the question of maintenance allowances and grants. My hon. Friend has already referred to the married student and the difficulty he will be in during his intern period. The amounts laid down are £350 for the first six months and £400 for the second six months. I think that for married students with families an additional grant should be made, as hitherto, to enable them to meet their family responsibilities.
I am more concerned, however, about the position, particularly in the early stages, of students who are entirely dependent for their maintenance at the present time on Government or education authority grants, who even under the present arrangements have to wait at least two weeks before hearing the result of their examination. Under the new arrangement they may have to wait a considerable number of weeks before getting intern posts. I understand that their grants finish when they pass their examination. If that is so and they are unable to find a post in one of the hospitals for a period of several weeks, or may be even months, what will happen to them?
One suggestion is that the grants will be continued after they qualify and go on to their pre-registration service. I should like the Minister to interpret that. Does it cover this point? Does it only mean after they have obtained an appointment in a hospital? Does it, indeed, cover the gap between passing their examination and obtaining an appointment to a pre-registration post in a hospital? This is extremely important, because between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of the medical students are largely dependent on these grants, and it would be a tragedy if they were left without any kind of maintenance because of this new scheme.
Under the present arrangements they can, immediately they have qualified and passed their examination, get a job as a locum, which enables them to earn something

until they can set up in practice or obtain a hospital post. That will no longer apply under the new arrangements, so that factor becomes extremely important.
Secondly, I refer to the advertising of posts. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has referred to the difficulties of married women students who might have to go 100 or 200 miles away from their home to take up posts. I do not think that that is likely to arise a great deal, because the advertising of posts and the facilities given to students for taking up places in hospitals would, presumably, be done on a regional basis. Nevertheless, there is the question of how far the advertising of posts can be extended. I, personally, think that all posts should be advertised.
I recognise that in a scheme of this kind, with students coming from the university and seeking posts in a hospital, a great deal of assistance can be given by co-operation between the medical school and the hospital; but there is bound to be a considerable delay, whether the post is advertised or whether it is fixed up by mutual agreement between the hospital and the teaching authority.
Is that to be overcome, as probably it could be, by encouraging the students to apply for posts before they pass their examination, and by encouraging hospitals to offer posts to students before they have qualified? If that is done—and I understand that suggestions are being made that the regions might consider that idea—I can foresee a great deal of difficulty, but although I appreciate the problem I cannot quite see the answer to it. Perhaps the Minister can assist us.
I understand that in the London region, in the last four examinations for the, I think, M.D. degree, there were no less than 50 per cent. failures, or about that. That would mean that, if students had applied for posts in hospitals before taking their examination and been given these appointments dependent upon their success, 50 per cent. of the posts, or thereabouts, would be unfilled after the examination, and then further applications would have to be made by other and successful students.
But what about those who had already accepted what might be called not quite


so satisfactory posts elsewhere? They would be barred from those better posts which had become vacant because they would have been given to students who had in fact subsequently failed their examination. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some assurance on this so that we can see a little way through this maze because, frankly, while I do not know the answer, I can see a great deal of difficulty arising.
Reference was made to students being dependent for their final registration after the 12 months' hospital service on satisfactory report from the hospitals. What does that mean? If a student has done six months on surgical work and six months medical practice, or alternatively midwifery, he has completed the 12 months. If he has not been satisfactory, presumably he should not have been allowed to complete the 12 months. The fact that he has completed 12 months should, I imagine, entitle assumption that he has been satisfactory. In my view, these are no longer students when they have passed their examination and gone to the hospital. They are practising doctors taking the first stage of their practical experience in a hospital, where they have special facilities and opportunities which they would not have in ordinary practice.
I do not think they should be regarded as students dependent for their final registration upon having a satisfactory report from, as it were, teacher that they have been good boys and have carried out their duties satisfactorily. A lot would depend on the prejudices of the hospital authorities. If it is felt that something more than a mere record of the fact that they have completed their 12 months is necessary, if it is felt that something should be included in a certificate which goes to the General Medical Council to show that they have completed 12 months' service satisfactorily, at least there should be a compulsory provision that any student who in the course of his 12 months is not satisfactory in any respect should be given a warning as early as possible.
If a warning is given, he will have an opportunity of realising that he had better improve himself or there may be difficulties. If no warning is given, and he finds

that at the end of 12 months he has been refused registration by the General Medical Council and inquires why, and he is told that there was no satisfactory report, he is left high and dry with no knowledge of what it is all about. In that case there must be set up some kind of complicated arrangement so that he can appeal and find out what it was about, bring evidence and plead on his own behalf. I think that a warning is probably to be recommended in these cases. May I suggest that it should be made compulsory in any case where it is seen during the 12 months that the student is failing to give satisfaction?

Dr. Stross: This is a very important point. My hon. Friend will remember that in the Committee stage it was glibly accepted, and I use that word advisedly, by all of us that if the student was not found to be satisfactory at the end of the year, he would be free to go on another year. On reflection—and I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees with me—I find that obnoxious. Why should the student not receive his first certificate at the end of the first six months and the final one at the end of the year, so that if he falls into trouble in the second six months, he will only have a further six months to do? Would he not agree that that would be the right course, and that at least it would be some protection to the student?

Mr. Hynd: I can think of a great number of arrangements that could be made to try to overcome this difficulty, but I think that the most satisfactory one would be to drop the reference to satisfactory service altogether, assuming that the student is allowed to continue and finish his 12 months, so that the responsibility is on the hospital authorities, or, if that is going too far, it should at least be included in the Regulations that during the course of the 12 months, if for any reason the student or doctor is found to be unsatisfactory, he should be given adequate warning so that he will know exactly what is going on and be able to correct any shortcomings he may have.
I conclude by going back to the first point which I made concerning the question of carry-over grants. I make three suggestions. When the student has passed his examination and is waiting for a post in a hospital, if he has not already got one before he passed his examination,


there should be an arrangement for a special fixed grant to be made; alternatively, a limited grant should be made for a further period to enable the student to obtain a satisfactory post. If neither of these proposals can be adopted, then, at least some arrangement should be made whereby a grant should be given to him as a loan on future salary.
Whatever is done, I think that it is very important that there should be some arrangement for carrying over from the period when the education grant finishes to the time when, because of the legislation which we are bringing in and imposing on the student, he obtains a post, as this might mean a gap of several weeks or several months.
I think that the Minister will agree that these and other points with which I have not been able to deal fully are very relevant to this Order, and I hope that he will be able to give, through the records of the House and, I hope, the Press, some assurance to the medical students who will be so directly and drastically affected that these problems with which they are faced will be covered.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: We are being asked in this Order to agree that the time in which a student who has passed his qualifying examination should act in a resident capacity at some hospital should be 12 months. I suggest that whether that time is sufficient or not depends on how that 12 months is spent. If we turn to the Act, we read that the young doctor who has received his qualifying diploma before registration must show evidence that during the time the applicant—and here I am quoting—
has been so employed as aforesaid"—
that is in a resident appointment—
he has been engaged for such period or minimum period as may by regulations of the Council be prescribed in medicine, and for such period or minimum period as may be so prescribed in surgery.
As far as I know, I have seen no statement of what these minimum periods must be, and I think that the Minister ought to tell us what they are tonight. It is most important that the student should spend a sufficient time in both medicine and surgery, and I should not regard it as sufficient if he spent only one or two months medicine or the same period in surgery.
I will tell the House of my experience which shows how important that is. When I was qualified, I spent three and a half years in hospital undertaking resident appointments. But they were all surgical, and therefore, right through my professional life, I have had little or no medical experience, a fact for which I am quite sure I have suffered as, in all probability, have my patients also.
In my opinion, whether this time is sufficient or not must depend not only on the time, but also on the conditions of the appointment. These young men and women will not learn what they ought to learn unless they have time for thought and study. The Goodenough Committee make this point very definitely in their Report. I will read what they say, because they have put it so much better than I could. They say:
He needs adequate time for thought, for further study and for the personal investigation of the social and environmental conditions of the patients with whom he comes into contact. The last point is particularly important because the period of pre-registration house-appointments can provide a most favourable opportunity for establishing firmly in the minds of future practitioners the habits of social medicine.
I think we would all agree with that. But not only must the student have time for study and thought; he must have time for rest and recreation as well. For the first time after becoming qualified, he has to deal on his own responsibility with patients and has to make important decisions which is the most tiring and difficult time of his life. I recall from my own experience that I have never been so tired either before or since, not even after an all-night Sitting, as when I held my first six months' surgical appointment.
For these reasons, I feel that the young intern, as he has been called, should have time for thought and study, and also time for rest. As I have said, the Goodenough Report makes this point very strongly and suggests that in a teaching hospital the young man should only be in charge of perhaps 20 beds, and in a non-teaching hospital of perhaps 30.
May I deal with a point which has already been dealt with once or twice tonight, and that is the question of the satisfactoriness of a resident officer's appointment. The Act says that his services while employed must have been satisfactory. I feel that if his services are


not regarded as satisfactory during one of the two appointments he should be given another chance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) suggested, it would be advantageous if he could be told early in his career that his services were not approved of. If they have been decided as unsatisfactory, he ought to be told and given another chance.
I have suggested that he should be in charge of a relatively few beds, and he may have only one senior consultant to whom he is responsible. He and the consultant may be temperamentally unsuited to one another, and the consultant might, for no good reason, take a dislike to him. If I may draw on my own experience, I do not think my first surgical appointment was at all satisfactory. My senior did not think so because he entered in the hospital "black book," with very good reason, statements about me. If I had been turned out of the profession and never had another chance, I do not know that the profession would have lost much, but I should have lost a great deal. I feel that in all the circumstances where services are not satisfactory, there should be another chance. It is a matter which the Minister wants to look at very carefully indeed, as has been shown by the number of times it has been raised today.
There is one final point with which I should like to deal, and that is the medico-legal relationship of the intern. We know very well that litigation for alleged neglect in hospitals has increased enormously since the appointed day. These young men and women, will, of course, be able to get another opinion in most cases, but there are many times, perhaps at night, when a young doctor will have cases of great difficulty presented to him. He will have to ask himself, "Shall I take the case into hospital or chance it?" If he calls his superior from his bed he will not be thanked. If he admits the case into hospital when it is some trifling affair, he will not be thanked any more.
I am afraid that those who live on litigation will soon learn that there are such things as unregistered interns. They will be very ready to apply for compensation in cases where these junior people have been involved. What I want to ask the Minister, therefore, if he can insist upon

it, is whether it is possible in all hospitals for every resident officer under this new set-up to be insured in a medical protection society. It is done in all the hospitals with which I am connected.
Finally, I would like to explain that I am not disagreeing with this Order in the smallest bit. It will be of great advantage. Already we are turning out better trained doctors in this country than any other country in the world, because our training is much more practical. The Order will enable us to turn out doctors who are still better trained than in the past.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Perhaps I may speak again, by the leave of the House. I admit frankly that I did not realise that it was possible to go as wide as we have done in this debate, but I make no complaint about that. I will do my best, though here and there rather impromptu, to answer some of the points that have been raised. I am delighted in any case to have converted the party opposite to my point of view of two years ago that we should not have a narrow debate on this subject.
Perhaps the first point we might take is whether or not posts will be available next year, and matters of pay and other things that spring directly or indirectly from that. The House will be aware, as the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) has pointed out, that the General Medical Council have published a list of all the posts in which pre-registration service can be given at hospitals not only in England and Wales but in Scotland and Ireland as well. It is everybody's opinion that there will be enough posts, but it does not follow that there are enough posts exactly in the right places. There is a concentration of teaching hospitals in various parts of this country, notably in London. It follows that some areas will be exporting areas, and probably London and Scotland will be included in them, and many others will be importing areas. By and large, there will be enough posts.
On the question whether we have given sufficient notice, I cannot do better than recall what was said by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) about two and a quarter years ago, that this was not going to be sprung upon


students immediately, but would take between a year and two years to make the arrangements. The right hon. Gentleman underestimated a little, because it will have taken about two and a half years, when 1st January comes. There is no case to be made of inadequate notice having been given.
I very much agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) that it is desirable that one date should be selected for the whole of the country, though there is a proviso in the Act. There are great advantages in selecting 1st January in any particular year, in part because of its obvious administrative convenience, but more important because few students qualify in the first few months of the year. That is an important point. I am advised that only about 200 students will qualify in the first three months of next year.
I do not think for a moment that the scheme will work perfectly from 1st January. There will be lots of teething troubles and we must face that fact, but it will be possible to bring the scheme in when comparatively few people are qualifying, in the first few weeks of the New Year. We shall see whether we have made any particular forms of mistake.
I come next to the question of how the students are to get the posts and whether it is desirable that they should apply for posts, and perhaps be interviewed before the examination is taken. The hon. Member for Attercliffe pointed out, quite rightly, that this is an extremely difficult problem and one to which he himself saw no quick solution. Frankly, nor do I. In many things we shall have to learn from experience.
But very often the student, when he qualifies, will be able to spend part of or, with luck, all his pre-registration year in the hospital where he studied as an undergraduate. The lists that have been published show exactly where all the vacancies are, and the dean of the medical school will be in a position to advise the student whether any posts are available at the hospital to which the medical school is attached.
I visualise a considerable development, as envisaged by the hon. Member for Attercliffe, in co-operation between all the various bodies concerned. Already

one gets the co-operation and consultation between, say, the dean of a medical school in a provincial area which is going to be an importing area and, perhaps, the officials of some of the teaching hospitals in London. I think hon. Members will agree that this should not be done by regulation or by fiat by the Minister. That sort of co-operation will have to grow, but I myself have invited hospital authorities to co-operate with the universities and medical schools to ensure that the newly-qualified doctors do not have to wait an unreasonable time before they take a hospital post. There may, of course, be some gap.
The point was raised—perhaps I may take all the financial points together—about what is to happen in that period. The position, as two hon. Members opposite have mentioned, is that the rates that are agreed for house officers are £350 for the first six months and £400 for the second six months, although, it must be added, there is a deduction of £100 for board and lodging, which is a not inconsiderable item.
The overwhelming majority of those who might be in financial difficulties will be ex-Service students. They have been eligible to receive modified allowances from the Ministry of Education during the period that they spend as house officer after obtaining medical qualifications; and that is to be continued for the pre-registration service.
Perhaps I may indicate some of the extra amounts that can be obtained, though this is primarily a matter for the Ministry of Education. There can be an extra £25 a year for keeping two homes, an extra £44 a year for the first dependent child and £27 a year for a subsequent child. That works out—the comparison was made between somebody at the university and someone in the pre-registration year—that at the university a married man who has one child, which can, perhaps, be taken as a fairly typical example, receives during training £427 untaxed.
The same person, on being a house officer, would get an average of £375 for the year—more, of course, for the second half year—£25 for the double residential allowance and £44 for the first child. That comes to £444. Tax and National Insurance together come to £29 7s. 6d., leaving a net amount for this hypothetical


doctor of £414 12s. 6d., which is a fair comparison with the £427 that he is receiving. In addition, it is possible for him to have an extra grant—although I admit that the qualification for this is exceptional hardship, and that should be stated—of £25 a year which, although small, as, of course, these sums are, does cover the gap between the two to which I have referred.
I now come to the other point mentioned by the hon. Member for Attercliffe about what is to happen in the period—and I admit there will be such gaps—before an officer is enabled to obtain a post or perhaps—which I think even more serious—if he has to export himself, while he is uprooting himself and taking up the new post. In such a case my right hon. Friend will also pay a sum that is based on the usual vacation allowance to newly qualified men who cannot get a house post as soon as they qualify. This is to be paid for a period not exceeding two months and it will be the appropriate proportion of the vacation allowance previously paid, plus dependant's allowance. I am afraid that vacation allowance varies so much that, with the best will in the world, I cannot give precise figures of what it is. But this does show that there some provision for this gap up to a period of two months in which special allowances can be made through the Ministry of Education.
I noted with great care what was said by the hon. Member and I think that perhaps the best assurance I can give is that I will satisfy myself, if necessary in consultation with my right hon. Friend, that as far as we can we will see that any particularly difficult cases are met. But I think it also fair to say this. We should not over-estimate the hardship that may conceivably be caused. It would indeed be a very great mistake if, because of some temporary embarrassment—and that is going to happen—the medical student were not to take advantage of the year of pre-registration service which I think we have had general agreement is desirable and which I am asking the House to approve tonight.
I come to a rather different subject, although one of extreme importance. Let us take first the question of the certificate.

Practically everything relevant is contained in it. The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) made some reference to Section 2 of the 1950 Act. I do not propose to read it, although I will refer to parts of it. There is the question of a satisfactory report. I seemed to get an inkling from the hon. Member for Attercliffe and from another hon. Member opposite that it would be desirable if in some way there were some sort of appeal against an unsatisfactory report. I do not think that is an idea which can be entertained.

Mr. J. Hynd: Let me get this clear. I suggested that, unless it were made obligatory that the warning should be given in any case of unsatisfactory service before the end of the service, we might find ourselves at the end of the service with a man with an unsatisfactory report and have no alternative but to accept it, without there being some kind of machinery by which he could appeal. I suggest that that is what we should avoid by giving a warning.

Mr. Macleod: I am glad that the hon. Member agrees that an appeal is a very bad idea. I was deeply dissatisfied with the degree I was given at the university but I know of no means by which I could appeal against it.
The question of the warning seems to me to be very sound indeed, but I think we are on a little difficult ground here. I shall not, as Minister, be responsible for laying down what the content of medical education should be; I am sure I carry the House with me in that. It is beyond doubt desirable that these matters should be widely discussed, but there are appropriate authorities—and I frankly do not consider that I am or should be one of those—for deciding precisely what form the curricula and indeed this certificate should take.

Mr. Hynd: Has not the Minister in fact already instructed the medical schools and teaching hospitals that in such cases a warning should be given? My emphasis would be on "must be given." Surely the right hon. Gentleman has only given such instructions?

Mr. Macleod: I am prepared to look at that point, but I was not talking exactly on the point of the warning, on which I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman.
I was asked a particular question by the hon. Member for Barking about whether regulations had been made as to the way in which this year was to be spent. That is a most important point but they are not regulations made by myself; they are, and again perfectly and properly, for the reasons I have just given, regulations made by the General Medical Council. That is made perfectly clear in Section 2 (2, a) The answer is that regulations have been made, but it is not particularly helpful to the point which the hon. Member has in mind, because the regulations empower licensing bodies to approve particular posts and within that it is a matter, as indeed is made clear in the Medical Act, 1950, for the licensing bodies who are to issue or are not to issue the diploma, as the case may be, at the end of the year.

Mr. Hastings: Cannot the Minister do something to see that the time spent in medicine and surgery are approximately equal, because if only a short time were spent in one or the other I think we should not get a well-trained doctor with a balanced experience?

Dr. Stross: Might I intervene before the right hon. Gentleman answers that point? I think that the Act lays down six-monthly periods and that medicine or surgery may replace one or the other. I feel that it should not be rigid like that. The right hon. Gentleman has been dealing with the question of the certificate of satisfactory work. If a student has, for example, done six months' surgery and left his chief with a satisfactory certificate, would it not be reasonable, if anything goes wrong afterwards with somebody else, for the Minister to use his influence to suggest that if that student has to do any work beyond a year he should have his six months' satisfactory work credited to him in any event?

Mr. Macleod: On the first point of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), my recollection is that the six months to which he refers is not in the 1950 Act but that it is left, as I have said—and I insist on this point, that it is right—to the medical authorities themselves to decide this matter. A difficult point is raised as to whether an interim certificate should be given, say, after six months—and another should be liven for the second six months if the

student is doing half medicine and half surgery. Tonight, I will go only as far as this. I say quite certainly, and I must claim that this is correct, that it is not for me to interfere in this particular matter, but I will undertake to see that the views expressed by the House tonight are brought to the attention of those responsible in this field. I think that probably that is the best way of leaving that particular issue.
One more point, and a most important one, was raised by the hon. Member for Barking, who raised a number of what I might call medico-legal points in matters concerning the risk which an officer might have to take, perhaps in some problem that might arise in connection with giving certificates, and we can all think of other examples, such as the administration of dangerous drugs. Some of these points, if I remember rightly, were raised by the hon. Gentleman in the course of our debate in 1950, but I take note of them, and I will examine the particular possibility which he put forward that every resident officer should be compulsorily insured by a medical protection society. I will gladly look at that matter, and let the hon. Gentleman know the results of my examination.
There are one or two final points which I think should be made. I do not think it is possible, even if you, Sir, were to permit me, to go into the intriguing questions raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) in relation to some recent Circulars that have been issued from my Ministry, and which, as a matter of fact, follow precisely the lines that had been already started by my Socialist predecessor. I do not think, with great respect, that they are particularly relevant to the period of 12 months which we are considering.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I do not want to go into it in great detail at this time, but surely it is relevant to ask whether, in fact, this might have any effect upon the standard of post that might be available to interns, not only for the interns themselves, who, no doubt, will be safeguarded, but in regard to the actual quality of any training which they may get. Is there any risk that the quality of training might be endangered by this possible proposal of freezing staff?

Mr. Macleod: I am satisfied that there would be none at all; certainly, no thought is or has been for a moment in my mind.
We have had a very good debate. I have tried to answer in as detailed a manner as I can the questions which, I frankly acknowledge, are of very great interest to medical students throughout this country, and they will find some of the matters I have dealt with, concerning pay and methods of application, in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, and I hope that will help them.
If I may go back to the Order which I am asking the House to approve tonight, whatever differences there may be about 1st January, 1953, about the method of application, about hardship or allowances, I have heard no word tonight—and I take it that there is none—against the period being 12 months. It is that period which, I freely admit, is part of a much more considerable pattern, that I am asking the House, in this draft Order, to approve.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, might I ask him to say a few words on the one point which I think he has missed? I refer to the question whether, to his knowledge, there has been any inquiry at all about the length of general medical training which links up with the further period of training which we are discussing?

Mr. Macleod: Not as far as I know, but there are a number of committees on allied subjects to this which are due to report in the near future.

Resolved,
That the Draft Medical Act, 1950 (Period of Employment as House Officers) Regulations Approval Order of Council, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th July, 1952, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Orders of the Day — GERIATRIC TREATMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wills.]

9.10 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: It would be possible, I think, to link the subject I wish to discuss with the one which has just been discussed, but probably it would be better to deal with it entirely separately. I am glad that we have a little more than the normal time for the Adjournment Motion. I claim that this subject is one which deserves a great deal more attention than it has had so far.
I had better begin by explaining to some of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been asking me during the last few days what the word "geriatric" means, that the dictionary meaning is: "That branch of medicine which treats disorders and diseases associated with old age." I think that we can deal with this as an entirely non-party matter. It is a new field of medical science which is rapidly developing, I believe with very satisfactory results. I should like to deal with this subject as the care of the aged infirm in its widest sense, not forgetting the possibility of rehabilitation wherever that is possible.
This is a growing problem because of the increasing proportion of old people in the country. My information is that most county councils are facing serious problems in this connection, while the old people themselves are finding that it is causing unhappiness and preventable suffering due to the lack of facilities. I am encouraged to note that the Ministry are alive to the problem. In their current Annual Report they say—and I think that it is worth quoting—that:
The problems of the aged and infirm who waver between sickness and health and of the 'borderline' case are particularly difficult to solve. The hospital authorities are responsible for the care of the sick, and the local authorities, under Part III of the National Assistance Act, 1948, for those who are not sick but are in need of care and attention; this division of responsibility could lead to difficulties when it is not clear on which side of the line a particular patient properly rests, but it must not become the cause of hardship. It is, therefore, important to achieve the closest and smoothest co-operation between the hospitals and local authorities if the needs of the


chronic sick and the old and infirm are to be met. Sometimes persons brought to hospital are found to need not medical treatment but simply care and attention, but have no known home or person willing to care for them; such persons should be placed as soon as possible in accommodation provided by the local authority, but hospital authorities have been told in a memorandum dated 2nd November, 1951, that they should not be refused admission to hospital while other more appropriate accommodation is being found for them
That paragraph recognises that there is a problem, though I suggest that it is much too complacent about the existing facilities which I claim are totally inadequate.
Just in case you are beginning to look at me with lack-lustre eye, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I am not proposing fresh legislation. I shall try to explain my proposal in a few minutes. So far as I can ascertain, the old people are divided into four distinct categories. I think it would be useful if I mentioned what are those categories. I am not dealing with the senile old people, who are an entirely different problem.
First, there are those able to live at home with some occasional help. They are being catered for very successfully, I believe, by such things as home helps; by the "meals on wheels" service which is often operated by the W.V.S., and by a certain amount of district nursing. I say straight away that it is far better, wherever it can be done, to keep the old people in their own homes and to try to help them in those various ways.
There is a second category of people who are living in hostels for the able bodied; people who have no homes and no one to look after them, as mentioned in the paragraph I quoted a moment ago. They are looked after by the county council under Part III of the National Assistance Act, and also in some cases by voluntary societies who have provided suitable hostels. They again are fairly well catered for under that Act.
Then we come to the third category of the chronic sick, and here the picture is by no means so satisfactory. They are in hospitals where beds are available, and where there are beds available the chronic sick are very often admitted either to the hospital itself or what are now called long-stay annexes, where they get skilled nursing with medical supervision. But in the same report which I have just quoted we read to our horror

that there are 8,800 chronic sick waiting for beds, and that in the hospitals where they have such chronic sick beds there are 3,100 beds under-staffed. That is a very serious position, and even bed cases of chronic sickness today have to wait a very long time, usually, at any rate in my area, for people to die and thereby release the beds.
There is at the moment in the hospital area in which my constituency is situated a waiting list of 212 chronic sick people who have to wait nearly five or six months before they have any hope of admission. Recently we have been comforted by the news that at Clitheroe an annex to the hospital is to be made available which will provide 50 beds of that type.
I would call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to a letter I received only an hour or two ago, which tells me that the Manchester Regional Hospital Board have now notified the district hospital committee that it may not be possible for the Board to ask for a starting date for the work on that place until January, 1954. That really is not good enough. I think it scandalous, even at the present time of financial stringency, that important, essential and urgent work of this kind should be postponed until January, 1954.
In my area they have attempted to deal with the problem to some extent by an unofficial arrangement of co-operation between the regional medical officer and the hospital authorities. It is quite an unofficial arrangement, which reflects credit on the officers concerned, and is one which could be copied, and indeed is operated elsewhere. But it ought to be on some kind of official basis.
Under that arrangement, the medical officer classifies the cases which are brought to his notice and notifies the hospital authorities accordingly—"This is Category A," or "This is Category B," or "This is Category C." Of those 212 cases on the waiting list, to which I referred, 50 are category A, and I am told that they have no hope at all of getting admission in less than five to six months.
May I give one example of the type of case? It is a man, 72 years old, who has high blood pressure, is bedfast and suffers from arterio-sclerosis of the brain, and arthritis. His wife is mentally feeble. He has been on the waiting list since


August. This is a terrible situation, and I hope it will be borne in mind when the Minister considers the information which I have given her about the Clitheroe Annex having to wait until January, 1954.
Category B people, who have no hope at all of getting admission, are like this; a woman, 76 years old, has had a stroke; she is almost completely bedfast and recently, while she was trying to put some coal on the fire, she set herself alight. She is looked after by her husband, who is 77 years old. But, in Category B, she has no hope at all of getting a bed.
In my area, I regret to say, there is no geriatric service at all. That is bad enough, but now I come to the fourth category—and this is the category which provides what I consider to be the real problem, with which the Ministry ought to be dealing and with which, I hope we shall hear tonight, they are dealing. This is a category of people, who, as the Ministry of Health Report says, are on the border line between health and sickness.
In our desire to pass proper legislation, we, in the House, have fallen into the error of assuming that people are either well or sick, and now we find in practice that there are many cases in this no man's land between health and sickness—people who may be occasionally sick and occasionally well, for instance. At the present time, unfortunately, they do not seem to be the clear responsibility of one authority or the other—neither the hospital nor the county council.
For example, I know of a case of an old lady with no legs, partially blind, but not sick. The county council do not want her in the hostel, because she needs a certain amount of attention and they have not the nursing attention to give her. The hospital do not want her, because she is not acutely sick and she would be occupying a bed which is probably wanted for urgent sickness or for somebody awaiting an urgent operation. The hospital are therefore chary about accepting the responsibility, perhaps to the detriment of other patients.
Or it may be that these people have been in hospital and the hospital can do no more for them, so that they are temporarily discharged—and yet they are unable to look after themselves and there is

nobody at home to look after them. They may be suffering from arthritis or a bad heart. Their relatives may be willing to look after them but have not the accommodation to do so. We know so many families which are living in such conditions that, with the best will in the world, they cannot look after aged relatives. Yet, as I say, the hospitals do not feel justified in giving beds to these aged people when those beds are required for more acute illness.
What is the remedy for this? I suggest better liaison between the two authorities of the type which I have already mentioned, who operate unofficially in the area covered by my constituency, but I also think there is an intermediate type of rest home which is very badly needed.
That is not only theory, because it has been tried and proved in practice. What is needed is not just somewhere where they can go for a week or two, but a permanent place for people who are aged and infirm but not chronic sick. It could be and should be linked with the geriatric service of the nearest hospital, because many of these people can be put on their feet again by proper geriatric treatment. Many of them need more sympathy than medical attention, and this new medical science has done wonderful work in that direction.
Unfortunately, neither the county council nor the hospital seems to have the power to set up these homes at the present time. Section 21 (1) of the National Assistance Act, 1948, lays a duty on local authorities to provide:
(a) residential accommodation for persons why by reason of age, infirmity or any other circumstances are in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them;
That seems to cover them, but then officials begin to ask the questions, "Is an infirm person a sick person, is a sick person an infirm person?" And they begin to pass the case from one to the other, or rather the case falls between one and the other because nobody seems certain when infirmity is sickness or vice versa. I find that the dictionary definition of infirmity is "lacking in bodily strength or health." Some hospitals define that as sickness and some do not.
The alternative Section 26 of the 1948 Act allows some local authorities to arrange with voluntary organisations to


do this kind of work. Here, in the absence of fresh legislation, I think may be the most fruitful field for inquiry. There is at Stanmore not far from this House an excellent institution called "Springboks House," so-called because the funds were provided from South Africa. There an experiment is being carried out, as far as my information goes, very successfully indeed.
In the Hornsey area there are several places run by Mrs. Hill, with whom I had the honour to serve on Hornsey Borough Council for some years. She has been a pioneer in this work, and by voluntary action, with the sympathy of the local authorities, she has been able to do the kind of thing which I think ought to be more generally done. There is also a body called the National Corporation for the Care of Old People, which is run under the auspices of the Nuffield Foundation. I suggest that the Government might very well give more encouragement to bodies like that if they are not prepared to do the job themselves or to get the local authorities to do it.
The ultimate aim of the whole thing must be to have in every area a comprehensive service for the care of old people, with someone responsible for linking its various parts together. That is most essential. We have a good example at present in the T.B. scheme, where one officer can decide what is to be done. At present, as far as I can find, there is no officer with the responsibility of going to an old person and deciding which authority shall deal with him or her. That is a very serious situation.
Furthermore, this comprehensive service which I have suggested must be closely associated with the geriatric service in the hospital. I am afraid that the "closest and smoothest co-operation," which was mentioned in the paragraph from the Ministry of Health Report I quoted a few moments ago, is just not working satisfactorily. That is the main point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister.
I have no doubt that she is very sympathetic to the case which I have endeavoured to put forward, but I urge her to do everything she possibly can to implement the intention of that paragraph in the Report. I hope that she can give us some news that will bring some hope

and comfort not only to the old people concerned but to the medical officers and those who are very interested in this question who, in many cases, are struggling against heavy odds to get something done.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: I am sure the whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) for raising this subject. It is perhaps one of the most important social problems facing us at the present time, and if I had been fortunate in the Ballot today I was proposing to move a Motion dealing, not only with geriatrics but with the whole wider subject of a unified policy for old people in general.
This is not a party matter, because there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who feel as strongly as the hon. Member for Accrington does about it. We have here a great social problem, not only of the sickness of old people, but of our ageing population. Whoever forms the Government, now or in future, will have to do a lot of very hard thinking on this subject, to try to see how we can cope with the social, medical and economic problems of an ageing population.
The hon. Gentleman said that a large number of hon. Members had asked him what was meant by the term "geriatrics." Those of us who are here tonight, and those who read the OFFICIAL REPORT, will know a great deal about this subject after his very lucid survey. I do not wish to repeat anything of what he has said, but I should like to underline the difficulty of securing admission of the acutely-ill patient. The hon. Gentleman did refer to that, but I rather wanted to enlarge on it a little, because on page 17 of the same Report to which he referred there is the following sentence:
The difficulty sometimes met in securing admission of acutely-ill patients over 65 has been mentioned in earlier Reports and there was evidence during the period under review that, particularly in times of exceptional pressure, there was difficulty which might have been avoided in securing admission for other patients.
In the year 1952 it is an astonishing reflection on all concerned that such a sentence could still be written. I know this problem is one with which the Ministry is concerned, and with which the National Council for the Welfare of Old People is very concerned. Last year


there was the case of a man who died in the street, on the lines of the case to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention, having been refused admission to hospital and not having been considered suitable for admission to a home. It is inconceivable that that could happen in the Year of Grace 1952.
This problem can be solved by co-operation, but I believe—and there are others who share my opinion—that, in the long-run, while co-operation may work in 95 per cent. of the cases, there will always be the odd case in which the machine will break down. There ought to be somebody with the statutory powers which the relieving officer had in the old days, of demanding and insisting on admission to hospital.
Granted that the accommodation the patient got in the old days was not as good as it is now, but, somehow or another a hospital roof was put over the sick person's head because the relieving officer had the statutory right to demand it. Nowadays the view of the Ministry is that it can and should be secured by co-operation. As I have tried to suggest, that may not always work, and I think the Ministry ought to bear in mind the restoring of that statutory power to somebody.
If we have to find a substitute for the relieving officer, let it be either the medical officer of health or, in my view just as suitable, the county welfare officer who could, if necessary, secure, if not necessarily admission to a hospital, at any rate admission to a home. The Ministry must bear in mind that that statutory power might have to be given. I hope that will be borne in mind.
I conclude by saying that I was very struck by some remarks of the Minister, which were reported, in a speech on tuberculosis. He said that tuberculosis would be wiped out within the lifetime of many of us now living. I am sure that we shall all be thankful if that horrible scourge can be removed from the human race in this country, but we have to bear in mind what it will mean in terms of medicine and hospital requirements. As we cure all these diseases the number of the population who live to a great old age will be increased, and consequently the demand for hospitals, and I think that in

all our hospitals and throughout the medical service priority should now be given to this question of the health and welfare of old people.

9.36 p.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: This problem is one of the legacies which was left to us from the old days of Poor Law when old people, whether they were sick or not, were, if they were destitute, put into workhouses or institutions and left there without adequate attention. It was just a question of giving them food and keeping them clean until they died.
Under the 1948 Act, the whole conception of the attention given to older people was revised. The problems which that has left to us are very difficult ones indeed. Now, when an older person has an accident or requires medical attention, there is no question of that person going into an institution where no one attends to him. The 1948 Act has made it possible for every individual of whatever age to go through the ordinary receiving bodies of the hospitals concerned and receive medical or surgical attention. So the treatment of older people has taken on a completely new aspect, and we get, of course, new words springing up, such as the word "geriatrics."
In Liverpool, and in the hospitals there for which I have some responsibility, there is the opportunity to watch the progress which has been made in relation to this matter, and it is simply amazing. I have seen old people from 70 to 80, and in one case a man of 92 who broke a leg, who in the old days, before the 1948 Act came into operation, would not have been considered as suitable for medical or surgical treatment. In the case of this old gentleman, because of the new service and the new approach to this problem, he was attended to as if he were a comparatively young man, his fracture was mended, and he was able to get up and walk about again.
This problem of dealing with the older person means that we need additional medical services and doctors who specialise in this particular branch of work. I believe that the whole question is one of classification—of deciding whether these old people need active medical attention for the purpose of getting them well as quickly as possible


and allowing them to go back home, or whether they need permanent attention because there is no one to look after them and if they are left at home they will lie in bed and be neglected.
A report has recently been considered by the various branches of the service—the teaching hospitals, the local authorities, the management committees of the hospitals, through the regional boards and the universities—asking for discussions among all those bodies to see whether it is possible to establish in an area co-ordination between those services, so that the difficulties which have been created can be ironed out. I think that will be very useful.
The other problem left to us is that of accommodation. If we have not the accommodation to deal with these people, then obviously they cannot go into hospital. Nothing was more depressing in the years before the new Act came into operation than to go into a hospital ward and to find it filled only with very old people. I think that is a wrong approach to the problem and that we shall have to deal with these old people as sick or injured people instead of segregating them and placing them in separate wards and departments.
First of all, we must make arrangements to see that they are dealt with as people requiring active treatment. They ought to be able to obtain, and, in fact, do in the main obtain, that type of treatment, especially in local authorities which have been giving these up-to-date services for some years past. In such areas old people are not all put into one ward. I think that from a nursing and training point of view it is very important that nursing staffs should know how to deal with elderly people when they are suffering from the same complaints as those afflicting younger people.
In the main, the problem is one of accommodation, and I will put the position of Liverpool. I have a Question down for tomorrow for oral answer, which I do not suppose will be reached, with reference to accommodation for which we have been waiting in Liverpool for some time. The management committee and the regional hospital board have obtained accommodation for 100 cases of chronic sick aged persons. We in Liverpool are desperately short of hospital accommodation, as the Parliamentary

Secretary will know if she looks at what happened there during the recent influenza epidemic. The accommodation is there, but we are waiting for a starting date. It is a building which was evacuated by an orphanage during the war, and it has been standing empty for approximately four years. The plans are ready and the arrangements are made, but we cannot get a starting date from the Ministry so that we may get on with the job.
We were hoping, in view of the very large number of people with whom we have to deal in Liverpool—it has a population of 750,000—that we would be able to have this accommodation ready for use this winter. But there is now no possibility of that, despite the fact that everything required to furnish the hospital has been ordered. Nobody can do anything because there is this hold-up in regard to a starting date. That is something which could be attended to straight away and which would resolve the difficulty of finding accommodation in our area for this type of case.
These are long-term problems and are not easily solved. We must adapt our attitude towards them in the light of how things work out. In the main, it is a question of classification. In various places people are occupying hospital beds when they might be got up and accommodated outside so that the beds could be available for more urgent cases. I recognise that this is a very difficult matter today owing to the completely new approach to the subject, but it is being done in certain places, though not to the extent that it should be done. That is something that the Minister should look into.
As regards medical attention, I want to pay a tribute to those specialists and medical attendants who have given this matter their personal attention, because what they have been able to achieve where they have these geriatric units is really most remarkable. An extension of such services is required and further assistance must be given in relation to that position. Also, the general practitioners must be considered in relation to this matter.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) said that there ought to be some co-ordinating officer in a local authority. I think we must give our general practitioners more responsibility.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I was referring only to the admission of the acutely sick.

Mrs. Braddock: I was coming to that. The views of the general practitioner who knows the family and the circumstances of the case ought to be listened to. Everybody is entitled to have a doctor now for the purpose of visiting him or her at home if necessary, and more power ought to be given to the general practitioner to say whether he considers a case ought to be given a bed in hospital. Somebody has got to take the responsibility of saying whether there is a bed vacant or not for the admission of the case, but we are inclined to overlook too extensively the responsibility of the doctor who visits the home and on whose list the patient is.
Very often the doctor will say that if the patient could go into hospital quickly for a short period, then there is a possibility of his being discharged perfectly fit and not occupying a bed for a long time, whereas if he has to remain at home because there is no accommodation, or because the matter of priority does not apply or because the need is not fully considered, a stage may be reached where the person becomes a permanent invalid because he has not had emergency or immediate attention in time.
The problems are terrific. At every meeting of the management committee of which I am a member, we have to face these problems, and I know that other management committees have to do the same. But the question of co-ordination, responsibility and classification—I cannot stress that too strongly, not so much on the question of age but on the question of illness—are matters requiring consideration. Although the purpose of geriatrics is to see that older people are cured as quickly as possible, we must not let too much stress be put on old people as old people; we should regard them as persons who need medical attention. Some sort of medical attention is necessary. The older people have got more sorts of complaints than the younger persons have.
We are indebted to my hon. Friend for raising this matter tonight. It is one on which I could talk for a long time, but other hon. Members may want to express their views. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary ought to keep all these matters well in mind, for new

Acts and new approaches create new difficulties. We discussed one the other night when we debated accommodation for mental defectives. That is another difficulty arising from a new approach.
We ought not to be despondent about the position, or under-estimate the amount of work and the amount of skilled services requiring to be done. We should continue to work in this matter in order to see that our people are as healthy as they possibly can be and for as long as they possibly can be. We want to see the people cured quickly and returned to their homes again, thus avoiding the necessity of long stays in hospitals and the occupation of hospital beds.

9.48 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: The hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has made a very interesting speech and it is a pleasure to follow one who has had such a wide experience of this subject. On one point I strongly agree with her, and that is the importance of the general practitioner having considerable say as to whether his patient should be admitted to hospital or not, granted the existence of accommodation.
I am particularly glad to have the opportunity of making a very short contribution to this debate, because in Birmingham we have a Council for Old People which has done extremely good work. I know the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer), were he here, would entirely agree with me in saying that. I think we ought to remember, when we discuss this question, the amount of voluntary work for the old people carried out in all our big cities today. The problems arising out of an ageing population are ones which will give rise to even more difficulties in the years to come.
Apart from the financial problems involved, and the need for more accommodation, there are also the purely administrative issues, and the hon. Lady was right in saying that we must consider the question of classification. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) and the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) both pointed out, there are many people who are not sick and who vet at the same time


cannot be classified as well. Sooner or later this matter will have to be dealt with. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Accrington for having initiated the debate, and I shall be very interested to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary what plans the Ministry of Health have for meeting these problems.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: We join with our colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on having brought up this subject for consideration tonight. Whatever the State does for the aged, there is a great field remaining for voluntary workers. Whatever our differences may be in political ideology, it will be a sad day when we believe that we can unload old people into some kind of institution and expect everything for them to be done there.
I have discovered that old people have a great desire to remain in the community where they were brought up, and that it is very great hardship and tragedy when they have perforce to be sent into what they regard as an institution. As has been shown tonight, a new approach has been made in recent years to this matter by all sections of the community, and not least by the Labour Government. There is a new attitude, as there is indeed to the whole problem of sickness. I would stress what my hon. Friend has said, that in the sphere of mental health there is a sort of dark and unhappy world, full of phantoms and hideous things of every description, and that it needs to be looked at closely and hard in the face so that as soon as circumstances permit we can start the work of classification, segregation and accommodation.
Although I stress the need for voluntary work to go on—thank God it is going on in all parts of the country by people of good will—much is being done for the aged people by themselves as well as by kindly disposed people. We all rejoice to hear it. On the other hand, there are circumstances when nobody is left in the family to take care of an old person, and particularly an old man.
A case was brought to my notice a short time ago in Stoke in which three old men were living together in some ramshackle property away from everybody else. They were of great age and were a

great danger to themselves. They were not clean, and they ought to have been in hospital, but the accommodation was not there. There was nobody to demand accommodation for them in a hospital. They were just waiting for somebody to die. By the good will of an alderman who was on the welfare committee their case was taken up. Fortunately or unfortunately, somebody died that evening, and one of the old men was admitted to hospital next morning. The others were taken later.
How far is the Ministry coping with this problem of accommodation? It will be within the recollection of all of us that when the Minister of Health is answering Questions the problem of adequate steel supplies is often raised. How far has work on accommodation schemes been held up because there was no steel? In the case of Liverpool, Birmingham, Stoke and elsewhere the matter has been acute. I am glad to say that the Minister has been most helpful to Stoke, and that we have a prospect of providing accommodation.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us the nature of the problem in terms of new accommodation and what are the prospects of meeting this need? How does it all measure up? Is it because of shortages of steel? As my hon. Friend has said, how far it is a problem of staffing these places? Is there a shortage of nurses, and if so, what is being done about it? I hope we shall hear something about these points tonight.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: I do not want to take up any time in repeating the excellent arguments that have already been put forward in this debate for the Minister's consideration. We are all very grateful to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) for having raised this subject, because in all our constituencies we all have precisely the same problems put in front of us as have been explained by the various hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.
The one thing on which I should like to say a few words is the possibility of enlisting outside bodies who could play a part in providing accommodation. If there are charitable organisations and people who have endowments that they can use, we ought to try to encourage


them to pay attention to the case of the old people.
The Ministry can only go so far. We know that the contributions they can make are all contained within the general economic strength of the country. If we had unlimited money and materials, and unlimited people to call upon to provide the staff, then we should be right to hammer hard at the Minister to ensure that all these needs were met. We recognise that the Minister can only do what the general overall economic and financial strength of the country will allow. In that connection, I reinforce the plea made by the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), and by all the other Members, for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to see that all the efficiency that it is possible to bring is brought to bear on this question. If it is possible to give a starting date for buildings that have been planned and approved, then let it be given. We hope that within the allocation of all health services, proper proportionate attention will be given to this problem affecting old people.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) said, the problem is one that will get bigger and bigger. We cannot see the end of it. The report on population shows that the question of the ageing population is one to which we must continue to give a good deal of attention. It is not a matter of a queue that will get shorter, but one which, by the inevitable process of living will get longer. I believe that the Ministry will do their best, but I do not think that, within the limits of the financial provision, they will be able to catch up with all that is wanted for this problem of the old people as well as all the other health services.
The hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange spoke the other night of the queue of the mentally deficient. The official figures show, I think, that in 1948 there was a waiting list of 3,900. That figure has now gone up to something like 7,900. This is another field in which we urge the Minister to give assistance, although there is a limit to what can be done out of the financial provision it is possible to allot for dealing with these services.
However good the Minister might be, however excellent the committees which are set up, in the long run a committee, however good, can never replace the "good neighbour." If we can encourage the good neighbours throughout the country and encourage the charitable organisations to pay to old people the kind of attention that a few years ago they paid to orphanages and things of that sort, they may well be able to make this extra contribution towards meeting the problem over and above what the Minister herself can do.
If we all, in our various capacities, throughout the country, can encourage such trusts and organisations, and if we can encourage industrial undertakings, with their own welfare services, to try to provide old persons' health homes—

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

Mr. Nicholls: If we can encourage industry to set up old aged persons health homes as part of their welfare services, that, in addition to what the Minister can do, may go some way towards meeting this problem, which is going to grow as the years go by.
Once again I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Accrington on enabling us to discuss this problem and to give our good wishes to the Parliamentary Secretary and her right hon. Friend in trying to spread the allowance granted them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on as wide a front as possible.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I intervene because of the evocative point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) a short time ago. This matter has been taxing my mind for a long time and also, I believe, the minds of medical officers of health. I am speaking of border-line cases, not only physical but also mental.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether later she can tell me the procedure followed in mental borderline cases which are certified in this situation. Let us take the case of an old gentleman who is bodily and mentally


weak and living alone. He may go out for a walk, not feel well, and collapse upon the pavement. He may be all alone and not quite sure where his home is, or how to get back. In that case an officer may be called in from the town hall, perhaps a social welfare officer.
I understand that in that case, if there is no accommodation—and we have been told that it is difficult to find accommodation in hospitals for elderly people in this plight—there may sometimes be what one might term abuse. It is fatally easy then for an officer to have to make a decision to call in a doctor perhaps and have this old man certified for a mental institution. It may be a borderline case and very difficult for one to make up one's mind.
I submit that it is fatally easy to take what I might term the easy way out. There may be, and I am told that in the past there has been, abuse of this kind. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me what is the procedure in such a case, and whether any case of this kind has been brought to her attention. I think it is asking very much to place the decision of a qualified medical officer upon the social welfare officer from the town hall. There is need for a co-ordinating officer in these cases. This matter has taxed my mind for quite a while and I hope that the hon. Lady can give us some explanation and tell us, in particular, whether this sort of thing has been happening and how it may be overcome.
In the end there is only one way of avoiding this very difficult situation. That, of course, is by building more geriatric homes. I was very worried when I heard earlier that the new wing at Clitheroe and many other institutions of this kind are not being built. I hate to introduce a discordant note, but when one sees schools have not been built which could have been built and, in this instance, that hospitals or wings of hospitals are not being built, one is forced to say that perhaps if we did not build so many houses under the campaign of the party opposite, we might build more wings of hospitals and more schools.

Mr. H. Nicholls: Surely the hon. Member would be the first to admit that the basis of good education and the basis of good health starts in the home. So the

provision of homes is really helping both education and health.

Mr. Johnson: I do, but it is a question of where the emphasis is placed. I submit that if we had more wings of hospitals built and more people taken there, more housing accommodation might be released to serve the purpose which we both so ardently wish to see served. So I put this question to the Minister: has she had any instances of abuses in the way I have indicated, and would she say what is the exact procedure by which these old people have, I fear, sometimes been sent to institutions of this kind?

10.6 p.m.

Mr. James Carmichael: We have had a very interesting discussion on a subject to which I have paid great attention not merely in this House but in local government. I intervene tonight only because the question of the aged people of Scotland cannot be separated from that of the aged people of England. I make no complaint about the Secretary of State for Scotland not being in his place, but I feel that it would be unfair for a debate on a subject which is so important to the whole House to continue for an hour and a half without an intervention by a Scotsman.
This problem is becoming just as serious in Scotland as in England. I regret to say that there is a tendency by all of us to regard people, when they reach a certain age, as having reached the stage when they cannot be cured. There is a psychological approach as much as a medical approach at present. The Report of the Department of Health for Scotland deals with the aged sick and the English Report deals with the chronic sick, but these are the same type of people. I submit that there has been a falling back in dealing with this problem during the last few years.
Almost every week-end when I go home I am disturbed by the fact that aged people cannot get into hospitals. I must admit that during the period when many local authorities were entirely responsible for the aged we could get the aged into the hospitals much more quickly. That is because there was not the clear classification in those days that we now have. As a result of the development of the teaching hospitals, the age of the patient began to be considered. When the local


medical practitioner is demanding the right of his patient to be admitted to hospital, he is always called upon to provide all the necessary particulars, and the age is generally a stumbling block in such cases.
It is admitted in the Report that there seems to be no possible chance of seriously tackling this problem at an early date. Let me put before the House the situation as it is put in the Scottish Report:
The provision of adequate facilities for old people who need hospital treatment continues to be one of the most difficult problems. Waiting lists remain high, and in present circumstances it is impossible for the Hospital Boards to make a start on long-term plans for the development of geriatric units in specially provided accommodation.
I am not so sure about the segregation of the sick people. When we are building our hospitals there should not be the classification to the extent that some people desire, but that is exactly what is happening in Scotland.
I know of one hospital in Glasgow—it is referred to in this Annual Report—which the local authority thought almost 20 years ago it was time to close but which is now being turned over entirely to the aged people. There will be 80 beds, and the announcement that they will be exclusively for the aged people indicates to those aged people that they are going in there because nothing can be done for them except give them kindly nursing, and that in due course they will be carried out. That is a completely wrong approach to the whole problem.
My intervention is due to the fact that this is primarily a Treasury matter. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H Nicholls) was very anxious that we should make more use of the people who used to help voluntary hospitals and who have in their time done a lot of work for aged people. Without detracting from any views which the hon. Member holds about voluntary efforts, I say frankly that this question of dealing with sick persons cannot be handled in a voluntary way. It is a very important aspect of our social services, and I therefore ask that the Ministers who are responsible should examine these paragraphs of this Report very carefully indeed.
I do not know if the hon. Lady who is to reply to the debate has studied these

paragraphs closely, because I know that there are so many documents to be put out in one's name when one is a Minister that there is often insufficient time to study them oneself, but both these Reports are worth considering. Indeed, when we are dealing with a universal problem, I think it would be quite a good thing if the Ministers for Scotland and England got together to tackle this very serious matter.
I should like to conclude with a point about Scotland. The Report goes on:
But the problem generally is a serious and growing one, which will require for its solution a concerted effort over a long period.
The reason I draw attention to this Report is that if we go back over the years we get the same kind of report, and this is a job that will require a whole lot of attention over a long period.
What I want to know is when there is to be a real start. I know that improvements are being made, and I know that, apart from politics, there is a general tendency for a much broader outlook on our social services, but I feel that we are not driving hard enough in connection with the aged sick, and I therefore ask that some kind of effort should be made by the Health Departments for both England and Scotland to put some pressure on the Treasury in order that they might go ahead with much more building of accommodation for sick people.
I am very appreciative of the opportunity which has been given to me by my hon. Friend in raising this matter tonight, and I thought that a slight contribution from the other side of the Border might, at least, speed the day when we shall get a very big improvement in the conditions of the aged sick.

10.12 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful indeed to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) for having initiated this very important and interesting debate, and we all welcome very much the longer space of time which has given to hon. Members more opportunity for taking part.
It is, perhaps, a measure of the importance which we attach to this subject that the hon. Member who introduced it was dragged from a dinner, and I myself was about to walk on to a public platform,


and both had to race back to the Chamber, because the other business on which the House was engaged had not taken quite as long as we anticipated. Nevertheless, we have had the opportunity of hearing a wide debate, to which many hon. Members who themselves are associated with regional boards and hospital management committees have been able to make most helpful contributions.
To clear up one small point and get it out of the way first—it was raised by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson)—concerning the question of a patient whom the hon. Gentleman feared might be certified by an over-zealous medical officer who was anxious to find him accommodation of some kind, I think that his fear is very much over-emphasised. The patient can be sent voluntarily, but only voluntarily, for observation if he shows some sign of mental disorder, to various hospitals, and it is entirely up to him to discharge himself any time he wishes. On the other hand, if patients are certified, they can only be certified first on medical examination, and then on the order being signed by a justice of the peace. Hon. Members who are justices of the peace will bear me out on that point.
I think that the provision that at present exists is adequate to safeguard the liberty of the subject and the needs of those people who, because of some slight senility, should not really be classified as mental patients. Some of the somewhat scare propaganda about the manner in which people are pushed into mental homes is without justification. I am sure that those hon. Members who are associated with hospital boards which deal with mental hospitals, will bear me out when I speak of the care which is taken in this matter and the responsibility shown by justices of the peace who do not lightly sign these orders.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) will forgive me if I do not give him details of the services and improvements in Scotland. I should indeed be infringing upon the rights of my colleague the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to tell me that Scotland has its own Scottish Office. Generally, the problems are the same in the two countries. Much that I have to say about England and Wales

will apply equally to the progress made in Scotland.
While I appreciate the gravity and the size of the problem—I do not pretend or seek to under-estimate it—I think that all hon. Members will agree that we have done a great deal since the introduction of the National Health Service Act. The hon. Member for Accrington suggested that there was a grave gap between the service provided on the medical side and that provided on the local authority side. Where co-operation is working to the full and where beds are available, then the statutory and administrative arrangements should be adequate to meet any of the cases mentioned by hon. Members, though I do not deny that there is a shortage of beds compared with the demand.
Clearly, hospital authorities are responsible for the sick and local authorities are responsible for those who are not to that extent sick but are in need of care and attention. It is an obligation. It has been recommended through the Boards to all hospitals that they should not refuse border-line cases where there is a recommendation from the G.P. or the welfare officer because the person lives alone and cannot obtain proper attention and care.
The making of a new classification, of a border-line section between the two, will not give us any more beds. It will only make two lines of approach and three classifications to sort out instead of one line of approach and two classifications. I do not think that the solution lies in merely finding another group and another classification. That will not give us one more bed or one more annexe. The solution lies very much in more accommodation and better use of what we have.
Since I have occupied the post of Parliamentary Secretary, I have answered Adjournment debates on accommodation for T.B. patients, for the mentally deficient, and tonight, for old people. It is a problem reflected in every sphere of the National Health Service where the regional hospital boards have to weigh up the legitimate claims of the various sections. They have to make up their minds whether, with the capital it is possible for us to allow them in any one year, they should give priority to T.B. beds,


or whether the greatest need is perhaps for additional beds to be allocated to the mental or the chronic sick.
There is far more to this problem than a mere shortage of beds. There is much more that could be done by close co-operation between all the authorities concerned. We wish to see flexible co-operation between the local authorities, and the hospital services, using all the powers at their disposal in respect of the aged, so that any possible hardship to individuals can be avoided.
I wish to deal with a special category mentioned by the hon. Member for Accrington which was also dealt with by the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). I agree with her most cordially on the question of the wonderful work done in the geriatric units. There is no such organisation as a specific geriatric service as such. The service uses a general medical service; whether it is a question of physiotherapy, or orthopaedics, or whatever it is, that service is complete in the hospital either for the old person or the young. Therefore we do not want some isolated geriatric service.

Mrs. Jean Mann: There are quite a number of geriatric wards in Great Britain.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Lady has not had the advantage of hearing the whole debate. I know that her hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange will agree that the division of opinion, small though it is, between myself and the hon. Member for Accrington is not that there are no geriatric wards under the Health Service or the Medical Service Act, but that there is the same medical service to the old as to the young and if they go into a geriatric ward, if they have orthopaedic or physiotherapy treatment it has the same value in every case.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is the hon. Lady certain of that? My information is that there are people who are specialising in this treatment for old people; not only dealing with them in an orthopaedic way, but rehabilitating them; and that there is a special way of dealing with old people, and that that is the side which is being developed.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Yes, but there are general surgeons and general physicians—I do not want to enlarge on this point. We really want to see that the best possible treatment is available to anyone whether they are sick or old. The point I wish to make is that there is no differentiation or scale of treatment, whether it applies to the young or to the old sick.
The great advance which has been made is that there are wards, geriatric wards, for old people where, instead of their being put into the poor law institution, as the hon. Lady mentioned, they now obtain all the medical services that equally apply to others who may be much younger. We are well aware that the question of the chronic sick is one of the most difficult problems we have to face. The shortage of beds is part of the problem, but not all of it. It is true that at present we have 57,000 chronic sick beds and that, from a survey taken during the war in England and Wales, assessed on the rising old age population, we believe that we require something like 80,000 beds in all.
But, for the chronic sick, we have a waiting list at the moment, as the hon. Member for Accrington indicated, of 8,800. In 1950, we had 2,000 more beds than in 1949. We are steadily increasing the accommodation both in old people's homes and by adaptations of the old public assistance institutions, and here I would pay tribute to those authorities who have gone to great lengths to gut and to remake, as it were, the inside of these old public assistance institutions, and make them into very fine accommodation providing very pleasant and cheerful surroundings for old people seeking sanctuary in their later years.
Apart from the shortage of staff, and we have 3,100 beds un-staffed which would be available if the staff were available, there is also the problem which we are combating and overcoming of greater co-operation and of getting the right person in the right bed at the right time. The terms "aged" and "chronic" are too often regarded as synonymous. Geriatric services in hospitals today have been greatly developed. In fact, no less than 40 per cent. of the so-called chronic sick can today be rendered fit for discharge from hospital.
We have a further problem with regard to patients when once they become fit


for discharge, which is to find somewhere to which they may return. This should be to their own homes wherever it is possible.
There are not enough old people's homes and hostels to provide for all the old people; we recognise that there is still a serious shortage of that accommodation. But we must impress upon a very small minority of the population—a minority of which hon. Members who deal with their constituency correspondence will be aware—that there is a tendency, amongst that minority, to say, "Oh, well, once the old lady is in hospital we have nothing else to do and our responsibility has finished."
If the hospital cure a patient and make her ambulant, and if the family have accommodation and are reasonably situated, then the family have a duty to their parent to take her out of hospital again. There is a minority who believe that their personal family responsibility disappeared with the creation of the National Health Service, instead of their appreciating to the full that if, under the Service, we can make the old person ambulant and fit, then the place where she is happiest and where she wants to be, is back with her own family and in her own home.
Hospital authorities have also been encouraged to provide long-stay annexes, which deals with a point in which the hon. Member for Accrington is particularly interested. A patient who no longer requires hospital treatment, and is yet not well enough to go to an old person's home or back to his own home, can stay in a long-stay annexe. More annexes have been provided in the hospitals and, in particular, the King Edward Hospital Fund has provided the capital for a number of these long-stay annexes, particularly in the Metropolitan area, where they are working with very great success indeed.
It has been alleged that, owing to the disappearance of the relieving officer—and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate made this point—it is more difficult to secure accommodation. But the mere appointment of some other new officer, by whatever term he is called, will not provide beds in a hospital if the beds are not there. I am quite convinced that with the general practitioner,

who should be in contact with his patient; with the county welfare officer; with the almoner of the hospital, if she is dealing with an out-patient whose condition is deteriorating—with all those people, there are qualified persons with all the facilities and the contacts at their command to make what provision lies within their power to provide accommodation for the old persons.
One hon. Member suggested that the general practitioner should have greater authority to decide whether or not a patient should go into a bed. Frankly, that raises very grave difficulties. There may be many general practitioners in one area but only one hospital in that area; and the only person who can decide the priority between Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Brown is the hospital superintendent who gets two separate reports from two different doctors. I do not think we can take from the superintendent of the hospital the responsibility of allocating, according to the best of his judgment, the priority of the cases put to him, not by one doctor but by many doctors in the area served by his hospital.
Another point made was the difficulty where a particularly acute case exists and the superintendent of the hospital says he cannot take the case in. But any medical officer always has the power and responsibility in acute cases to use the bed service which inquires around a much wider range of area for immediate admission of an acutely ill patient which the medical adviser deems it necessary should have immediate admission.

Mr. William Keenan: Do I take it from what the Minister has said that the medical officer of health has authority to do what we are asking the medical practitioner to do? May we use that information?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Yes. If the medical officer is satisfied that the case is sufficiently acute, he has the power and responsibility to apply for the emergency bed service to do all they can to find a bed for that acute case.
Another difficulty arises with patients who cannot be released because of the difficulty of finding accommodation for them as quickly as we should like—and that is in the financial advantage to relatives


of keeping their old people accommodated in hospitals and homes, particularly the former, and also in the undoubted decline in the sense of responsibility in some families when they feel that it costs them less when their parents have gone into one of the hospitals or homes. There is also the fact that more people are prepared to go into homes

than ever before because they have lost the Poor Law stigma and—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.